SmartTranscript of House Session: 2025-05-30-9:30 a.m.

[Chair Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Good morning. Members in lieu of a devotional today. Will you please join me in a moment of silence? Members. The Senate has refused to concur in the house proposal of amendment on Senate bill forty five, which is an act relating to protection from nuisance suits for agricultural activities and requested a committee of conference and appointed its members there too. Pursuant to that action, the chair appoints the following members to serve on the part of the house, The member from Shaftesbury, representative Durfee, the member from South Burlington, representative Malone, and the member from Milton, representative Leland Morgan. Members, we have received a request to read a house concurrent resolution that the house and senate adopted pursuant to the consent calendar. HCR one fifty one is a house concurrent resolution congratulating Casella Waste Systems Incorporated on the company's fiftieth anniversary. Please leading please listen to the reading of the resolution. [Speaker 1 ]: Whereas on a chilly day in April nineteen seventy five, Doug Cassella took a pickup truck, which he had purchased with money from jobs he held as a teenager and began collecting garbage from a few customers in Rutland near the Killington region. And in nineteen seventy six, his younger brother, John Casella, joined the company, Casella. And whereas in nineteen seventy seven, Casella inaugurated Vermont's first recycling facility, and this bold decision triggered the development of a waste and resource management infrastructure throughout the northeastern states. And whereas in nineteen ninety seven, on an inauspicious morning immediately following a major stock market downturn, Casella launched an extremely successful public stock offering. And today, the corporation is listed on the Nasdaq exchange under the symbol CWST. And whereas since two thousand, resource management and sustainability have become increasingly important corporate objectives. And whereas in twenty twenty five, Casella, now known as Casella Waste Systems Incorporated, has over five thousand employees, maintains operations in ten states, and serves more than one million customers in forty six states. And whereas, Cassello is a charter member of the US Environmental Protection Agency's two thousand five Climate Leaders Program, And today, it includes EV EV collection trucks in its fleet. And whereas in partnership with the University of Vermont, Casella established the Casella Center for Circular Economy and Sustainability, an internationally recognized research program for the study of sustainable waste and materials management. And whereas Casella was delayed to be listed as one of Forbes Magazine's twenty twenty five America's Best Midsize Employers, the only honoree in the waste management recycling industry, and the only Vermont headquartered company so recognized. And whereas in twenty twenty, the company established the Kenneth a Eyre senior CDL training center, named after Casella's first employee, which has trained over three hundred employees as commercially licensed drivers. And whereas the Casella Foundation supervises the company's giving initiatives and annually contributes over two million dollars to local communities. And the community's and company's employees volunteer more than fourteen thousand hours each year towards worthy causes. Now therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, the General Assembly congratulates Casella Waste Systems Incorporated on their on the company's fiftieth anniversary. And be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to Casella Waste Systems Incorporated. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Are there any announcements? Member from Casselton. [Member Harvey Epstein]: Thank you, madam speaker. We just heard the reading of the resolution honoring Casella Waste Management on the company's fiftieth anniversary. As I prepared these remarks, I was reminded of a quote from the famed poet Maya Angelou. Angelou famously said, I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. I could not think of a more fitting quote for celebrating Casella today. At the core of everything the company does is people. From the thousands that they employ to their more than one million customers, Casella remains as committed today as when it would as when it was founded, not just to doing well, but to doing good. While the journey began with that one pickup truck, two brothers, and their shared dream, it has grown into an extraordinary story of perseverance, grit, and success. One would be hard pressed to find a company here in Vermont or across our nation that remains as steadfast and committed to the communities where they do business as Casella. And you don't have to take my word for it. I hear it everywhere I go. Their employees are our neighbors, our friends, and in many cases, our family. They are the familiar faces we see driving down the down driving through town behind the wheel of their signature blue trucks. While we may have first noticed their logo on the blue bins in our neighborhood or on the city block on our daily commute, today, we see it proudly displayed as the sponsor of a local trade show on the jersey of our kids little league team and across our state's university campuses. As we heard in the resolution, the accomplishments and milestones the company has achieved are numerous, but I know if you ask John or Doug what they are most proud of, without a moment's hesitation, they would say Casella's people. They continue to hire and develop exceptional talent, many of whom are Vermonters. As one of our state's largest employers, Casella serves as a vital economic engine powering many of our communities. Casella has emerged as an industry leader in sustainability, protecting our environment and our planet for generations to come. A hundred years from now, the world will be saying thank God for companies like Casella. But madam speaker, we don't have to wait a hundred years because there are countless people who are deeply grateful for Casella today. Madam speaker, we are joined we are honored to be joined today by Casella Waste Management's founders, Doug and John Casella. They are seated in the gallery. Please join me in welcoming them and congratulating them on fifty incredible years. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest of the member from Castleton please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Member from panel. [Speaker 3 ]: Madam speaker, I am, very glad to have the guests of the member from Castleton with us, to hear this next announcement. Seated next to me is the founder and sole graduate of the other Duke University and is an a member from Burlington who has, achieved a real milestone, having established a business in two thousand and two, having grown that catering business, nurtured it, and now having, as of, I believe, two thirty seven PM on Wednesday, transferred it to employees to continue the good things that Sugar Snap Catering has done. I wish to congratulate the member on this impressive milestone and to thank her for being the kind of business owner that we would love to have more of in Vermont for all they do for their families, for their communities, and for their employees. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Congratulations, member. Member from Morristown. [Member Avram Patt]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, some thirty five years ago, I was so fortunate to work at a wonderful nursing home in Northern Vermont with a wonderful assistant director of nursing, a bright eyed, young, enthusiastic, smart, smart, smart, hardworking person. Our careers would separate and would go in different directions, but I was so pleased to reunite with my good friend, representative Mari Cordes, years later, working here. Mari has announced that she will be leaving the house, going to Nova Scotia to resume a career there. And I wanted to take this moment just to recognize her. She has she has contributed to Vermont richly. Replicating. I truly honor her and respect her. And I wanted to ask through you, madam speaker, if the members would join me in showing our appreciation to her. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Good luck, member. We'll miss you. Don't be a stranger. Are there any further announcements, member from Castleton? [Member Harvey Epstein]: Thank you again, madam speaker. And I realize that it is not customary for a member to speak twice during announcements, so I I appreciate this. But I would be remiss if I didn't recognize two very special constituents of mine that are joining us this morning, especially when those constituents are the two people that I am incredibly blessed to call mom and dad. There is no greater gift that parents can provide than a home filled with love, laughter, and opportunity. Growing up, my brother and I had no greater cheerleaders than our parents no matter where in the world our adventures led us, whether it was the coral reefs of of Roatan or the concrete jungle of Manhattan. No matter how ambitious excuse me. No matter how ambitious our dreams our dreams were, I knew my parents believed in them as deeply as we did. My being in this body is as much their accomplishment as it is my own. Madam speaker, please join me in welcoming my parents, Larry and Kim Harvey, to the People's House today. They are seated in the gallery. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Will the family of the member from Castleton please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Member from Rutland City. [Speaker 5 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanted to make a comment. I certainly concur with the comments that were made regarding Casella's. My husband had an insurance agency. And when they started out, they had he insured them. They had two trucks. And you will never find kinder, nicer people than John and Doug Cassella. They certainly give back to their community over and over again. It is somewhat amusing when you were out of state and you see a Cassella truck go by. It's like, ah. Anyway, I congratulate the Casellas on their anniversary. Thank you. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Member from East Montpelier. Madam speaker, I move that the remarks of the member from Morristown be journalized. The member from East Montpelier moves that the remarks of the member from Morristown be journalized. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have generalized the remarks of the member from Morristown. Are there any further announcements? Member from Derby. [Representative Mike Yantachka]: Madam speaker, I move that the member first comment from Castleton's words be generalized as to as to Casella. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Derby, moves that we journalize the remarks of the member from Castleton. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have generalized the remarks of the member from Castleton. Are there any further announcements? Member from more Mortel. [Speaker 7 ]: Good morning, madam speaker. On this possibly last day of our session together, I have it on good authority that the wonderful new member from Waitsfield will be celebrating her birthday on Monday. So would you please join me in an early birthday wish for her? [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Happy birthday, member. Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Oh, member for Milton. [Speaker 8 ]: I have it on good authority that one of my committee members has a birthday Monday. His name is Zahn. Oh, rep somebody. I don't know how the rules here. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Happy birthday, member. Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, orders of the day. Members, I have an update for you on the order of bills we will be taking up for this morning session. They are house bill four eighty four, house bill three twenty one, senate bill twenty three, house bill two sixty six, and senate bill one twenty three. I'll go through that again. We have five bills to take up this morning. House bill four eighty four, house bill three twenty one, senate bill twenty three, house bill two sixty six, and senate bill one twenty three. So with that, house bill four eighty four is an act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects. The bill passed the senate with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar, and the member from Derby, representative Nelson, and others will offer a further amendment there too, which is also in today's calendar to report the Senate proposal of amendment and offer that further proposal of amendment member from Derby. [Representative Mike Yantachka]: Thank you, madam speaker. House Bill four eighty four was passed out of this chamber, and it was largely a, bill to create a fee structure for beneficial substances in agriculture. And it was language worked across all fifty states from the Association of American Plant Food Control officials, which to here on forward would be known as Aptical. But in spirit of moving things along, I am not gonna go through four eighty four as we've done that once already, and I'd like to move right along to the rest of the show. And we will be sharing this bill because it's many components. There's seventeen secondtions, and we'll be bouncing around the chamber for your entertainment purposes. So section one, there's no changes. I will now yield to the member from Randolph. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Derby yields to the member from Randolph. [Speaker 9 ]: Madam speaker, I'll be re reporting on sections two, three, and four of the bill. Currently, companies that sell pesticide products in the state pay an annual fee of two hundred dollars per product to help pay for the disposal of obsolete and unwanted pesticides. Section two increases this fee by fifty dollars in response to rising costs incurred by solid waste management entities. Section three requires the agency of agriculture food and markets in consultation with the department of environmental conservation to study options for funding the reimbursement to solid waste management entities for all costs associated with the collection and disposal of unwanted or obsolete pesticides. The study would also consider the viability of having an extended producer responsibility organization manage the collection of these materials. AIFM would issue a report to the legislature by December fifteenth, twenty twenty five. If no EPR is created, the fee increases in section two would remain in place. And then section four concerns stormwater permitting for the Rutland County Fair. The fair is struggling to affordably meet the requirements for a three acre permit. Under this section, it would still need to obtain a three acre permit, but it would not be required to pay a stormwater impact fee or complete an offset for the phosphorus reductions it cannot complete because of physical constraints on the site. The other fairs affected by three acre permitting are already working towards compliance. Your committee on environment approved these amendments on a straw poll vote of of eleven zero zero, and I will now yield back to the member from Derby. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Randolph yields to the member from Derby. [Representative Mike Yantachka]: Alright. Thank you, madam speaker. Thank you, member from Randolph. Section five amends the definition of agricultural land under the current use to provide that land donate that land donating farm crops of two thousand dollars in one of two or three of five calendar years qualifies as eligible for agricultural lands. That can be found on page forty two fifty one in today's journal. We will be offering amendment on that. Section six, the heavy cut rule, is on page forty two fifty two, provides that the repeal provides the repeal of the Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation rules on the intent to cut notification emergency rules, standards and procedures shall be deemed not to have not to have repealed, and the provision of the rule shall be deemed to have continued in full force and in fact, and remain valid on and after July fifth, twenty eighteen. And this is in twenty eighteen, all rules had to be set. And this rule was made in twenty eighteen on July first. So it kinda got caught in a in a fold. And it's a rule, so if there's a reason for a heavy cut, they can, Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation will go and check the site and make sure all AMPs are followed and whatnot and and take care of business. That's found on page forty two fifty two. I'll now yield back to the member from Randolph. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Derby yields to the member from Randolph. [Speaker 9 ]: I'll now report on section seven through fifteen. Sections seven through thirteen have been previously passed by the SPOTI when we approved h three nineteen earlier this session have come back to us with the following changes. In section seven, the term architectural paint is being replaced by the term paint products and sections eight through thirteen make conforming changes to that change in term. And this is because in sections fourteen and fifteen, the bill amends the existing extended producer responsibility program for architectural paint to expand its scope to all paint products, including aerosol coating products such as spray paint, coating related products such as paint removers, and non industrial coatings such as furniture oil. This change is in response to a request from industry to include the products and and includes compensation to the solid waste management entities for the cost of paint collections. And your committee on environment approved these amendments on a straw poll vote of eleven zero zero. And I will now yield to the member from Manchester. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Member, did you yield back? I'm sorry. I had a hard time hearing you. [Speaker 9 ]: I'm sorry. I'm in the I'm yielding to the member from Manchester for the following section. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Thank you. The member from Derby yields to the member from Manchester. [Speaker 10 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. So be talking about section sixteen. And you can actually find this language on page forty one twenty nine of yesterday's calendar. And I'm gonna I'm gonna take just a few minutes here because this topic actually is new, to our body. It's not one that we've, discussed this year's. And so our, my committee, energy and digital infrastructure, took a fair amount of testimony on this language when it came over, and as it came over from the senate. So just to give folks a little bit of background, Ryegate is a wood burning, biomass power plant that's located, up in Caledonia County. And by burning low grade wood products all around the clock every day of the year, so twenty four seven, three sixty five for the most part, Rygate contributes, baseload power to our grid, totaling about three percent of our state's total electricity consumption. In addition to feeding the power grid, Reigate also supports loggers and our forest economy, providing good jobs and a market for these low grade whole tree wood chips, that are otherwise difficult to sell. So Rygate has a a power purchasing agreement, basically a contract with Vermont's utilities. And they're each required to buy their pro rata share of Rygate's baseload power at a fixed rate. In twenty twenty two, the legislator, the legislature extended this contract for ten years to two thousand and thirty two. However, the new contract was contingent on Rygate meeting certain milestones to make the plant more efficient. So biomass electricity is is not always very efficient. A lot of heat and energy is generated when you burn the chips, and a lot of this energy escapes the plant. So when the legislature extended the contract in twenty twenty two, we asked Rygate to increase its efficiency by fifty percent and to find a way to put that escaping energy to better use. We also required that Reigate demonstrate sound business practices, including payer paying its loggers, in full and on time. So, here's where the story gets interesting. As of a few weeks ago, Rygate is under new ownership, a lending company that provides, patient capital to small businesses. And they have now come to the legislature asking for a one year extension of these milestones. [Speaker 11 ]: Why? [Speaker 10 ]: Because the first plan to increase Rygate's efficiency is off the table. Cutting edge equipment that was to be shipped over from Spain is now prohibitively expensive due to tariffs, and an LOI to sell dried wood chips to a Canadian particle board company has been canceled. So the new owners have worked very hard in a short period of time to get a new plan in place using American made equipment, but the new owner needs a little bit more time to get it done. The new plan essentially is to capture more of that escaping heat to dry wood chips will Reigate which Reigate will then burn. So So we're creating kind of a beneficial loop. And in the language of this bill, basically, all you're gonna see is a series of proposed new deadlines one year out to give the new owners a little bit more time to get it done. So if you wanna look at the house calendar, you can see the section of Vermont law that pertains specifically to Reigate. That's what we're amending. You can see the first section saying that the public utility commission will reconsider Rygate's rates in twenty twenty eight if all of the milestones have been met. In, subsection k, you can see the requirement that Rygate increase its [Speaker 12 ]: efficiency by fifty percent. [Speaker 10 ]: And then you can see, moving down, Rigate increase its efficiency by fifty percent. And then you can see moving down all the milestones simply kicked out a year that we've asked Rigate to adhere to. So submitting a signed contract with a supplier and a contractor, submitting a certification from an engineer, submitting construction plans, and then on-site verification from the PUC that everything is, looking on track. So, our committee was very interested in this subject. We took quite a lot testimony. We heard from legislative council. We heard from the new owner of the Reigate Power Plant. We heard from the Department of Public Service, the Public Utility Commission, the director of the division of forests in the Department of Forest Parks and Rec, a lobbyist for Rygate, a lobbyist for the Vermont Forest Products Association, the executive director of the professional logging contractors of the Northeast, the wood buyer for Rygate, who's also a logging operator, the owner of a different Caledonia County logging company, and the interim commissioner of the Department of Economic Development. On a straw poll vote, our committee approved this requested Rygate extension nine zero. And having been now thoroughly informed about Rite Aid, we ask for your support. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: So the question is oh, member from Derby. [Speaker 10 ]: Oh, sorry. I was supposed to yield. And I now yield to the member from Derby. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Manchester yields to the member from Derby. [Representative Mike Yantachka]: Thank you, madam speaker, and thank you to the member from Westminster. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Manchester. [Representative Mike Yantachka]: Alright. The effective dates, sec section seven to thirteen will take effect on July first twenty twenty five, and section five, which shall take effect January first twenty twenty six. And this passed out of House Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committee on a straw poll vote of six zero two, and we ask for your support. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further amendment thereto? [Representative Mike Yantachka]: Thank you, madam speaker. On h four eighty four, the house agricultural food resiliency and forestry committee offers an amendment. The first, by striking out section five two thousand and thirty two VSA thirty seven fifty two, and strike it out as follows, deleted. Second, in section seventeen, effective dates by striking out subsection b in its entirety, and in certain in lieu thereof, a new subsection b to read, the remainder of this act shall take effect on July first twenty twenty five. And this was done with a straw poll of six zero two, and we urge your support on the amendment. Thank you. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: And now the question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further amendment there too? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The eyes appear to have it. The eyes do have it and you have concurred in the Senate proposal of amendment with further amendment thereto. Member from Poultney, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to action to message our action on house bill four eighty four to the senate forthwith. [Speaker 13 ]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to message our actions on h four eight four to the senate forthwith. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Poultney moves that we suspend rules, message, or action on house bill four eighty four to the senate forthwith. Are you Please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have suspended rules to message our action on House Bill four eighty four to the Senate forthwith. Members, next is house bill three twenty one, which is an act relating to miscellaneous cannabis amendments. The bill passed the senate with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar, and there is a further amendment to consider. We first turn to the member from Vergennes to report the senate proposal of amendment member from Vergennes. [Speaker 14 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. I will be presenting h three twenty one amendments to miscellaneous candidates, proposal of amendment as passed by the Senate. And as you mentioned, I will be offering further amendment to address sections that I will cite as I give this floor report. So h three twenty one is passed by the house, was largely a good housekeeping bill that attempted to address issues that have arisen in the past year identified by the CCB, which is the cannabis control board. How retail establishments are cited. How to wind down a cannabis business in the event of a sudden incapacity or death of an owner. Ensuring cannabis excise tax payments are reported appropriately in the event of a business transfer. There was very little in the way of new policy or market expansion. As a result, the bill received unanimous support from three committees. It touched on in the house as well as on the floor, and I believe that was a first for a cannabis bill. The Senate has made some changes, which I will review. You can follow along with those on page four thousand two hundred and twenty one of today's calendar. And as a result of those changes, as mentioned, I will offer, further amendments, once this is concluded. Section one, this amendment clarifies the law enforcement, that law enforcement, Macy's cannabis that is a legal pursuant to administrative rule duty adopted by the CCB as products containing synthetic cannabinoids delta eight THC. Section two permits the cannabis control board to receive fifty state fingerprint support criminal history background checks from the FBI for persons seeking a cannabis license. Section two a is a senate proposal of amendment. This was an amendment regarding the funding formula for the CCB that was added by senate economic development. This was ultimately removed by Senate Appropriations. Section two b. This section adds one new member appointed by Migrant Justice to the Land Access Opportunity Board. This is not directly related to cannabis but was a request by the LAOB, and needed a home, so we have it in here. Section three, this amendment clarifies that hemp products deemed intoxicating by by administrative rule are legally cannabis, not hemp, and must comply with all laws and rules regulating cannabis. This is testing, packaging, potency limits, labeling, advertising, etcetera. Section four, this section is one of the sections that will be proposed to be removed in further amendment. This section amends the rule making authority of the CCB in three instances. The first establishes licensing criteria for changes in ownership control or location of a cannabis establishment. Second, directs the CCB to consider regional population and local input when issuing retail licenses. Third, establishes rulemaking authority over a new license type. These are trim and harvest licenses. And lastly, it also related to like different license type to wear in. Again, this would be a suggested, proposal to be removed. Section five, this amendment allows CCB to use a third party background check company to satisfy background check requirements if the FBI denies their application for criminal history records. Section six, this amendment removes the statutory requirement that the CCB issue a temporary employee card while it processes an employee ID application. Seven, section allows CCB to issue a temporary permit to operate a cannabis establishment in the event that the owner of a license are unable to continue an operation due to incapacity, insolvency, dysfunction or abrupt closure. Section eight, this is one of the instances that we'll propose to remove. With further amendment, this section in conjunction with sections four eleven and twelve creates a trim and harvest service license type and authorizes this license type to operate multiple locations. Section nine, this requires cannabis packaging to include harvested on dates as well as packed on dates, section ten. This allows propagation cultivators, sort of a cannabis nursery license, to sell their seedlings to retailers who can register and sell them to home growers. Section eleven, this is one of the sections that we proposed to be removed, along with four, eight and twelve. This is all trim licensure harvest license language. Again, twelve just cited that. This section will be proposed to remove. This is the fee for the harvested licenses, created a two year option for employee ID cards, creates a two year option for product registration, and eliminated an intent to apply fee. Moving on, section twelve a. This is a senate proposal of amendment. This section asks the CCB to evaluate their current fee schedule and make recommendations whether they should be adjusted for fiscal year twenty seven. As a part of this report, the CCB will also evaluate whether a portion of of the cannabis excise tax revenue should be, dedicated to the cannabis business development fund and the land access opportunity board. Section thirteen, the section adds cannabis excise tax compliance information to bulk sale process, that is created to help streamline. Section thirteen A, this section ensures, synthetic nicotine products are taxed in the same manner as other tobacco products. Section fourteen, this section report, this section leads a report that was a requirement of the auditor's office. Let's see. Section fifteen, this it was struck by the senate. This section creates a full time attorney position at the CCP that would be dedicating dedicated, excuse me, to managing the agency's increased enforcement case load. So the rationale behind this was the new attorney position would be responsible for vertical management of the agency's enforcement caseload, drafting letters of warning, violation notices, and corrective action plans. Predictably, the CCBs enforcement caseloads are increasing as the market grows. If the CCB is unable to investigate complaints enforcement law complaints effectively, they're expecting long delays in case loads, things of that nature. Additionally, the CCB having a single attorney creates a perception of conflict within the department because one would be responsible for help guiding compliance while at the same time being in the position where they have to enforce compliance. So that's a difficult situation for a single attorney to be in in this market. Again, that position was removed by the senate. Section fifteen a, this amendment would allow a retailer in good standing and in partnership with a minimum of three small cultivators and manufacturers to seek a permit. First from the town, second from the CCB to hold an adults only cannabis farmers market. This is, a pilot program that would prop up the first sort of, public event for the cannabis industry. These events would be limited to a maximum of five. This isn't up to five, not a requirement of five. Geography, and disbursement around the state will be considered. The rationale behind this is we've heard consistently from small cultivators that their business model is not economically sustainable unless they have an opportunity to bypass some intermediary businesses in the supply chain. Of course, all of the cannabis laws, regulations, and workflows at the CCB and tax departments center around licensed retailers being the exclusive conduit for the legal sales to the public. This proposal, attempts to meet the cultivators halfway by allowing direct sales to customers by requiring sales be processed and overseen by the retailer on-site. The amendment includes safety regulations designed to mitigate risk and to promote the small cultivators themselves. The events can only take place in a town that is opted in before applying for the permit with the CCB. The retailer must receive approval from the municipal government, who may condition the issuance of the permit, on any public safety protocols they deem appropriate. The retailer seeking the permit from the CCV must be in good standing, Meaning, it will only approve retailers who have demonstrated the ability to apply with, tax collection and other guiding advertising, ID checking, security, inventory tracking, etcetera, regulations. The events must be properly insured, which may entail additional security and cash product management requirements by underwriters through the insurance industry. Events may occur outside under this appraisal proposal, but they must be in a secure access controlled defined area and screened from view of the general public. Retailers must partner with a minimum of three small cultivators or product manufacturers. They must submit to the CCB a profit sharing agreement that is fair to their partner cultivators and manufacturers. And they may not sell their own products if they happen to own a cultivation or manufacturing license. And lastly on this, the CCB has full discretion to add additional restrictions as needed and shut down the pilot program entirely if they are not going well. Section fifteen b asked the CCB to issue a report to the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction on how these events went sort of, that postmortem, as, so we can take a look once they're executed and dial them in, should we choose to continue with these these sort of events after the pilot program. And lastly, section sixteen, effective date, July one twenty twenty five. House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs voted favorably on a straw poll of eight two one. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: And now the member from Virgins, representative Birong offers a further proposal of amendment thereto that is printed in the calendar. Member from Virgins. [Speaker 14 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. So I referenced most of the sections that we were going to address in this. So the amendment that I'm offering to the senate proposal of amendment has four instances of amendment. And most of these proposals to remove these language these this language and provisions is just due to the lack of that attorney position, Creating more workload on more initiatives without the appropriate legal support was deemed unwise. So the first instance would strike out section four seven VSA eight eight one in its entirely entirety. Second, section eight seven VSA nine zero one in its entirety. Third, striking out section eleven seven VSA nine zero four c. And and that would be in lieu of section eleven being deleted. And then fourth, strike out twelve seven VSA nine ten in its entirety in lieu of the following, section twelve. This your committee on government operations and military affairs voted ten zero one on Straub poll to support this amendment, and we ask for the body support. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: And now for the committee on appropriations, member from Bennington. [Speaker 15 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. This amendment to h three twenty one adds one position to the land access and opportunity board, which would add a nominal per diem cost. While this bill has no significant impacts on the appropriations of the state, the report section of the bill will provide recommendations regarding the allocation of the cannabis excise tax. And of course, changes to that allocation would affect the revenue available to the general fund from that tax. House Appropriations found this favorable in a straw poll vote by six fifty. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: And for the committee on ways and means member from Fairhaven. [Speaker 16 ]: Madam speaker, the ways and means committee reviewed h one two three. We heard from legislative counsel, from the office of ledge counsel, the fiscal analyst from the joint fiscal office, and a favorable straw poll of seven zero four. We recommend this bill ought to pass. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further amendment thereto? Member from Chittenden. [Speaker 17 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I inquire of the order of the amendment, I guess. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Vergennes is interrogated. [Speaker 17 ]: Madam speaker, as I look at the amendment that came over from the senate, it doesn't look like the committee amendments strike section fifteen a. So I have some questions on section fifteen a, which is found on page forty two thirty four of today's calendar referred to as a cannabis showcase event or I believe as we referred to earlier as a new farmer's market concept. Madam speaker, how many licensed cannabis retailers are there in Vermont today? [Speaker 16 ]: Exact number escapes me, but it's plus minus one hundred, madam speaker. [Speaker 17 ]: Okay. So as I madam speaker, as I look at this, new provision, these new events could be multiple retailers. So and but I don't see a limit on the number of retailers that could participate in an event. So madam speaker, is it fair to assume if there are a hundred cannabis retailers that we could have an event at, say, a fairgrounds, with up to a hundred participating retailers. Is that correct? [Speaker 14 ]: It is correct to assume that, but it would also need to be vetted locally and through the CCB. So relying on their judgment to gauge what is appropriate to a site seemed logical. [Speaker 17 ]: I understand. But we have some big fairgrounds throughout the state. So, the other part of this amendment suggests that the special events could be held over a twenty four hour period. So I could read that madam speaker as we could have a two day event, you know, four PM one day to four PM the next day. Is that fair to read that into the provisions here, madam speaker? [Speaker 14 ]: You're saying so from four PM, say on May thirtieth to four PM on May thirty first as twenty four hours? Yes. I guess that it would be two days, but it would still be twenty four hour walk. Yeah. [Speaker 17 ]: No. I I understand that, but it would be I would think billed as a two day event. Thank you, member. Madam Speaker, I think this is, this provision is something obviously that's new to the house because it came over from the senate in this amendment late in the session. I do not support this provision. I think it needs more time, more discussion, and I am not in favor of the bill with this provision in it. I think this is this could be huge if, it was an event with twenty retailers and an untold number of growers participating, and I'm just not sure. This is promoting cannabis in my view, not controlling it. So I will be voting no. Thank you. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house concur in the Senate proposal of amendment with further amendment there too? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The eyes appear to have it. The eyes do have it. And you have concurred in the Senate proposal of amendment with further amendment there too. Next is Senate Bill twenty three, which is an act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections. The bill was referred to the Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs, which recommends that the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as printed in today's calendar. The member from Charlotte will report for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill. [Speaker 15 ]: S twenty three on act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Member from Charlotte. [Speaker 18 ]: Madam Speaker s twenty three is an act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections. Your house committee on government operations and military affairs recommends that it be passed be voted on a vote of six four one that it be approved. This bill requires anyone who knowingly, within ninety days of an election, prior to an election, publishes, communicates, or distributes fraudulent or deceptive synthetic media to include a disclosure statement acknowledging that the content was created or manipulated by artificial intelligence. So last fall, in a neighboring state, a voice recording went out via robocall to voters right before the presidential election, and the voice on the line sounded exactly like the presidential candidate, a presidential candidate, and that voice urged voters not to go to the polls and vote. The recording was created using artificial intelligence and sounded so real that many people believed that it was the actual candidate. So whomever created this call is attempting to influence the outcome of the election. As these types of technology rapidly become more sophisticated, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to distinguish reality from fiction, and this is really alarming. So it's important for voters to understand what's real and what isn't. It's important that we protect the integrity of our elections and do whatever we can to keep them from being influenced by people who are willing to lie and deceive to alter the course of these elections. This bill makes sure that if people are being given false information, it's very, very clear that that is what is happening. What this bill doesn't do is unconstitutionally limit free speech. We should and do and want to protect political speech, parody, satire, and other forms of media where people share their political views in a lot of different ways. There are more than twenty other states that have laws regulating AI in elections and six that have laws that are very similar to this one. They have a disclosure period within a time frame before an election. This bill doesn't ban anything at all, nor does it prevent people from creating this kind of content. One concern that people have is, will my elderly mother get arrested for sharing a video on Facebook or a social media site? And this bill specifies that the person has to know that that content is fraudulent or that it was created deceptively, and so the word knows is very key here. So if your elderly parent shares a video on their social media of a political candidate maybe throwing kittens in a garbage can, don't worry. They will be fine. That is important. So many of these laws are new and evolving, and as technology and the way it's used changes, it's likely that we're gonna be working on amending these laws and updating them in the coming years. It's really important. So starting with section one of the bill, it defines the terms that we're using. I actually have an amendment that we're gonna discuss shortly that will further clarify these definitions, but it doesn't substantially change them in a way that's going to affect what we're talking about now. Throughout the bill, two terms are used: synthetic media and deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media. So synthetic media is an image like an audio or video recording or any content that's been created or manipulated on purpose using digital technology without the consent of the candidate. Deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media is when that media created portrays a political candidate saying or doing something that would sully or injure that candidate's reputation or that attempts to unduly influence the outcome of the election. That's the important part is that they are trying to to use these this content to create, a situation where they're trying to influence how people vote and with dishonesty. So the disclosure quote that's required is really specific. It would be, this media has been created or intentionally manipulated by digital technology or artificial intelligence, and that is required to be part of any kind of content that's created using AI, needs is intended to influence the outcome of an election and is create shared within ninety days before an election, just to be clear about that. The rest of the time, people can go for it. So section two is the penalties and enforcement section. The attorney general or a state's attorney can, institute the action for the violations. They also have the authority to conduct civil investigations regarding potential violations of the act. There are some exceptions to people who or organizations that are that use that can use this kind of media, and those exceptions are news outlets. If they're creating a broadcast or some kind of print or broadcast media that is sharing that AI generated content as part of the newscast or a news report. If an organization is required to broadcast ad for candidates, there are laws about, you know, equal disclosure or equal time for political candidates, or if they are specifically paid to distribute this kind of media. Telecommunication companies, people who create this kind of media as satire of parody, and Internet computer service providers are also exempt from this. The penalties start at no more than a thousand dollars for a violation of this, unless the media is meant to incite physical violence or harm, in which case the fine isn't more than five thousand dollars And then if the person commits the same offense, again, within a five year period, then, the fines increase as time goes on. And the attorney general's office or state's attorney can enforce this. So your house, government operations and military affairs committee heard testimony from the organizing manager, the democracy team, a public citizen, the reporter from the Senate Committee on Government Operations, the director of policy and legislative affairs from the attorney general's office, legislative counsel, the deputy secretary of state, a democracy associate from VPIRK, the director of information operations research from Norwich University Applied Research Institute, a policy associate, on elections and redistricting from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the executive director of the Vermont Association of Broadcasters, the vice president of strategy from [Speaker 13 ]: Norwich [Speaker 18 ]: University, an advocacy director from the ACLU, the director of elections and campaign finance from the secretary of state's office, the president of Norwich University Applied Research Institutes, the director of elections and redistricting from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the assist assistant attorney general, chief of the general counsel and administrative law decision division from the attorney general's office, and a partner, with Lanai Public Affairs, New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association. We, ask for your support with a vote of six four [Chair Jill Krowinski]: one. And now the member from Charlotte offers an amendment to the report of the Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Charlotte. [Speaker 18 ]: So the amendment is a very quick one. It's in section one with the definition of the the deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media. It was unclear in the the first in the bill itself whether or not, images were included in that. So it just changes the language a little bit to make sure that it clearly includes images like pictures that are are created using AI. So and making sure that it's not just recordings. [Speaker 10 ]: And [Speaker 18 ]: that was that. And we approved it with a straw poll of eight zero three and asked for your support. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The first question shall the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs be amended as offered by the member from Charlotte? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. The eyes appear to have it. The eyes do have it and you have amended the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs. Now the question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended? Are you ready for that question? Member for Manchester. [Speaker 10 ]: Madam speaker, as my colleague from GovOps already mentioned, during the twenty twenty four election, thousands of New Hampshire voters received a phone call from a presidential candidate telling them that they didn't need to vote in the upcoming party primary. Here's the problem, and it should be terrifying to all of us. It wasn't him. It was a deep fake audio recording created by artificial intelligence. In recent months, I've seen several images on social media shared by Vermonters, aimed at Vermonters, and published in a political context in order to influence political opinion that were similarly created by AI. And I'd like to emphasize the word artificial. These images looked real, but they were fiction. Members, democracy is not a given. Democracy can be lost. It can be squandered. It can be corrupted. It can be shattered blow by blow until it is gone. And one of the most powerful tools of any healthy democracy is information. Voters deserve to make decisions, to form opinions, and to choose their elected leaders based on information that is accurate, that is reliable, and that is true. When our public forums are filled with fiction, voters are not only being tricked and misled, they're being profoundly harmed. S twenty three is quite frankly a light touch. It simply requires that within ninety days of any election, any synthetic media, whether it's a picture, a video, an audio recording, be clearly labeled as generated by AI if a person knows or should have known that it is deceptive and fraudulent. And I wanna repeat those words. Knows, should have known, deceptive, fraudulent. Madam speaker, there are a lot of ways in which democracy can be and is being undermined today. And there are a lot of ways in which we can stand up to protect it. I urge my colleagues to vote yes for s twenty three. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended? Member from Saint Albans Town. [Speaker 12 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm curious on page forty two eighteen under b one b. Why an exemption is created for these various entities of broadcasting cable, etcetera? Why is it exempted if it's paid to broadcast deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media? My concern I mean, this is an issue I think that could affect all of us, and I think that I am in agreement with a lot of the things that are we're trying to accomplish here. But we also have outside groups, activist groups who could actually buy airtime to air deceptive things. And I'm just curious as why that was included as an exemption. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Would you like to interrogate [Speaker 10 ]: the member? [Speaker 12 ]: Like to interrogate I'm sorry. I would like to interrogate the [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Charlotte is interrogated. [Speaker 18 ]: Madam speaker, there are people companies that exist to create this content for people. They are not responsible if they are paid to do so. To create the disclosure, the person who hired them would be responsible for that disclosure if they were to share it. [Speaker 12 ]: So you're talking about the vendor is is hired, madam speaker, and then they would not carry any responsibility if they pay to do this on behalf of someone? Yes. And again, my question is why not? [Speaker 18 ]: Madam speaker, if it's a company or a person whose business it is to create this content and they are being paid to do so because they have the expertise to do that, they are not responsible for how that content is used afterward or creating the disclosure. It's just it's I would say it it could be similar to maybe a baker making a cake and they are not responsible with the person who purchases the cake does with the cake after the fact. [Speaker 12 ]: I'm not sure. I well, madam speaker, I really appreciate that. Thank you. But I I really think that, I can't understand why that would not be considered something that should be investigated and carry some liability. But thank you. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended member from Georgia? [Speaker 11 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I interrogate the presenter of the bill? [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Charlotte is interrogated. [Speaker 11 ]: Madam speaker, my understanding you know, there's always a lot of talk in the halls, cafeteria, etcetera. I I have heard there was a question regarding this bill because testimony at some point was stopped while there were still there were still presenters wishing to present before the committee. Did that happen and do you feel madam speaker, there should have been more information presented to the committee or not. What what happened there? Madam speaker, are you wondering what my personal feelings are about how many witnesses we had? I'm wondering if there were more people who had spoken with the committee, clerk or however you do it in your committee, hoping to present to [Speaker 18 ]: the committee who were not able. Madam speaker, we heard from, I believe, seventeen witnesses, and every witness who was invited and and agreed to testify did testify. [Speaker 11 ]: Then there was no one left out there who did not have an opportunity to present to the committee. I I just wanna make sure that didn't happen. [Speaker 18 ]: Madam speaker, I'm sure there are many, many people who could testify on this matter, but, unfortunately, we do not have all the time in the world to hear testimony. I believe, the committee deemed it appropriate to hear from those seventeen people, and nobody it didn't I don't believe anyone was, denied the opportunity to testify. Thank you. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the House propose to the Senate to amend the bill as recommended by the Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs as amended? Are you ready for the question? Member from Waitsfield. [Speaker 19 ]: Madam Speaker, thank you. I just wanted to follow-up on the previous member's question regarding, an agency or a creative company. I guess, could I, interrogate the presenter, please? [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Charlotte is interrogated. [Speaker 19 ]: So thank you. So I just wanted to follow-up on the previous member's question regarding, a creative agency that is, creating, for example, a video using artificial intelligence and that the creative agency themselves are not responsible for putting this notice on their creative work, because they're this is how they're making their money. I understand that. So but is the assumption the onus is then on the organization or the candidate who has hired that creative agency to then take that creative and make sure that notice about the fact that it has used artificial intelligence is the onus on the candidate or the organization paying for that media that will then be shared publicly? Yes. Thank you. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, The [Speaker 16 ]: question is, shall the House [Chair Jill Krowinski]: proposed to the Senate to amend the bill as recommended by the Committee on Government Operations in Military Affairs as amended? Member from Newport City. [Speaker 20 ]: Yes, Madam. Speaker, I'd like to interrogate the presenter of the bill. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Charlotte is interrogated. [Speaker 20 ]: Madam Speaker, I'm I'm I'm a bit curious. The bill isn't it seems as though this bill prevents goes against our first amendment rights of free speech. Can you explain why this bill does not do that? And and under the First Amendment, wouldn't you say that, the right to produce such a, synthetic media, wouldn't this fall under the First Amendment protection? [Speaker 18 ]: Madam speaker, nothing is being banned with this bill. There no one's ability to create any of this content is being stifled. They can make all the content they want. All it's requiring is that there is a disclosure within ninety days of an election, letting consumers know that this was created using artificial intelligence. But there is nothing that is preventing anyone from creating this content or sharing it. It was really important, and we heard testimony about where that line is between satire, free speech, parity, political speech, all of which it's really important that those things are protected. And it was really important to the committee and to the witnesses that that we really maintain, that we stood on that line between making sure that elections aren't tampered with and that voters aren't disenfranchised and that people have the ability to use their voice and their words and their, technology to create these kinds of videos. I believe that the other six states where this very similar law has been enacted. Also, we modeled some of the language on those states. I believe that this was a good compromise. That's why we landed on the disclosure rather than banning it. Banning it would be unconstitutional, but asking for the disclosure is not. I would say also, there are sometimes disclosures required for like, let's say a person is creating materials for a political campaign, and they're required to disclose who paid for it. It's along those lines. [Speaker 20 ]: Madam speaker, who who decides what is satire or parody? Who makes that decision? [Speaker 18 ]: Madam speaker, I believe that that is something that has been in the courts for many years. I believe it is when we discussed this in committee that it was kind of a decision or a a I guess the the the deciding line is people know it when it is in front of them, whether or not it's satire or parody. I believe that in this case, these videos that are not satirical are really created in a way that is that looks, feels it just in any way, a regular person who's consuming that media would not know and would have no idea that it was false or that it was created by artificial intelligence. I guess the difference would be that it is intended to deceive and not intended to create a political point. [Speaker 20 ]: Madam speaker, I I would simply say, you know, with our first amendment, there's a there's a wide range of expressions that are that can be hurtful and mean. But unfortunate but fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, some of those comments, those statements are, are, are covered, are protected under our first amendment rights. And, I'm not sure that I can support this bill, and I thank the member for her comments. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended member from Burlington? [Speaker 21 ]: Madam speaker, technology is advancing at a rapid speed. We heard from one expert in just three to five years. We may no longer be able to tell what's real and what's artificially generated. That's not science fiction. That's our near future. You may ask, why would adversaries use this technology to influence elections and undermine our democracy? The answer is really simple. It's because we let them. We enable them to do so. Right now, the tools that allow foreign and domestic bad actors to spread misinformation, impersonate trusted voices, and so chaos are readily available. And Vermonters are left exposed. This bill is not about stifling free speech. It's about drawing a clear line between expression and exploitation. It's about ensuring transparency and accountability and a rapidly changing digital landscape. Guess what? We are already behind. Every day, we delay action. I would say every minute, we delay action. We risk falling further into a future where truth becomes indistinguishable from [Speaker 1 ]: deception. [Speaker 21 ]: But we have a choice, to be reactive or to be responsible. Vermont has always led with integrity and courage, so let's do it again. Let's act decisively to protect our elections, our communities, and our democracy. I am voting yes because the stakes are too high to do anything else. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended member from Franklin? [Speaker 22 ]: Madam speaker, pretty good jobs can be done with sound editing equipment, with, video editing equipment, with photo editing equipment right now, and have been for some years in order to do these kind of fraudulent things. Question is, is this the right way to do it or has enough thought gone into it? So may I interrogate the presenter of the bill? [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Charlotte is interrogated. [Speaker 22 ]: Madam speaker, could you tell me how this bill provides more protections than what exists in in election law today, things of this sort? [Speaker 18 ]: Madam speaker, I can't quite hear you. Could you speak a little letter? [Speaker 22 ]: I said, can you madam speaker, can you tell me how this bill provides more protections than what already exists in law, protecting protecting, elections today? Are there more penalties? You know, what what's what's different here? [Speaker 18 ]: Madam speaker, what's different here is the add the addition of the disclosure to that media that that lets whoever's seeing it, reading it, hearing it know that it was created using artificial intelligence. It's that disclosure statement, which is the key part of it, which is new. [Speaker 22 ]: Madam speaker, so if I made the same image using Photoshop or or some other image software, then then I I would wouldn't have to put a disclosure on that. [Speaker 18 ]: Madam speaker, if it was within ninety days of an election, yes. [Speaker 22 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. Thank thank you, member. I'm I'm just concerned, madam speaker, that we may or may not have gotten enough discussion or enough people involved in this so that we know we're we're coming up with a product that really does what we wanted to do. So thank you, madam speaker. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended. Member from Stowe. [Speaker 23 ]: Madam speaker, I've not prepared comments, but I've been riveted by this discussion and this issue. Everyone in this body took an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Vermont. And I wanna go back to the comments of a member from, Manchester. We've all watched the vulnerabilities of democracy and free and fair elections all over the world and definitely within our United States. And I wanna point out this is not a partisan bill. When it comes to constitution, I stand with the member from Newport, how critical the first amendment is in any functioning democracy, and the risks. And the risks today that we, both as a state, and a nation, and a world are under, because of, something I know less about than maybe anyone in this building. And that's AI and all this new technology stuff. But, I'm going to use my gut and my common sense that there is value in this step forward, and I am going to support this bill as presented. Thank you, madam speaker. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Member from Newberry. [Speaker 24 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I, interrogate the presenter, please? [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Charlotte is interrogated. [Speaker 24 ]: Thank you. I just wanna go back to this, point that's been brought up before on, page twenty four eighteen of today's calendar. The exception for is paid to broadcast deceptive or fraudulent synthetic media. [Speaker 16 ]: From your description, and correct me if I'm wrong, [Speaker 24 ]: it sounded as though if I, as a candidate, hired a company to create a deceptive piece of media for me, they return that to me. The owner it's on me to put that information out, and put that disclosure on there, not them. Is that what you're saying? [Speaker 18 ]: Madam speaker, it is it I might have misspoken then. It is on the person who created it could be liable, but is the person who is sharing it, you are also responsible for creating that disclosure. [Speaker 16 ]: So it is the difference whether you're paid to broadcast it or if you're not paid? [Speaker 18 ]: No. Madam speaker, if it's part of the course of a regular newscast or if it is [Speaker 19 ]: part of [Speaker 18 ]: you know, published, let's say, online or something as as part of a newscast that is articulating the fact that it is created by artificial intelligence, then that would be an exemption. [Speaker 24 ]: I'm I I mean, I'm maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like if I have a streaming platform and somebody pays me to create this fraudulent and deceptive media, then I'm exempt? [Speaker 18 ]: No, madam speaker. The creator would not be exempt. They could potentially be liable, civilly liable. [Speaker 24 ]: So where am I getting that wrong where it says exemptions is paid to broadcast deceptive? That sounds like an exemption to somebody who's paid to broadcast deceptive deceptive and fraudulent media. [Speaker 18 ]: Right. It's if so the exemption is for a television and radio station or, like, a broadcast that is paid to broadcast that content. That's what the exemption is for. So if a political candidate paid them to broadcast something, it's like an advertisement as opposed to a news story. [Speaker 24 ]: Okay. That it just I maybe I'm not getting it. I don't know. It just sounds to me as if I pay somebody to broadcast it, I'm fine. But if I pay them to create it and then I broadcast it, now I have to put that exempt that disclosure on there. [Speaker 18 ]: Well, madam speaker, the paying them would be if it were part of if you were purchasing ad time or or, you know, paying them as part of an advertisement for a political campaign, let's say, or if if you were purchasing that time for the content in order as part of a campaign to maybe I'm not making sense. But it's the exemption there is no exemption for who whoever created it. It's just for if someone's being paid, it's because they are obligated a lot of times to give, to accept those ads and to give equal time to candidates with their ads. [Speaker 24 ]: Okay. Well, it's just, I guess, not clear to me. Thank you. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house proposed to the Senate to amend the bill as recommended by the Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The eyes appear to have it. The eyes do have it and you have proposed to the Senate to amend the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The eyes appear to have it. The eyes do have it. And third reading is ordered. Members next. Oh, nope. Member from Hultany. Can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to take up off the notice calendar for immediate consideration? House Bill two sixty six, which is an act relating to the three forty b prescription drug pricing program. [Speaker 13 ]: Madam Speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to take up off the notice calendar for immediate consideration H. Two sixty six. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend rules to take up from the notice calendar for immediate consideration House Bill two sixty six. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The eyes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have suspended rules to take up House Bill two sixty six for immediate consideration. House Bill two sixty six is an act relating to the three forty b prescription drug pricing program. The senate concurred in the house proposal of amendment to the senate proposal of amendment with a further amendment thereto that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Winooski. [Speaker 25 ]: Madam speaker, this amendment is very simple. It just changes the effective date of section five of the bill from July one to January one, twenty twenty six. The committee on health health care found it favorable on a straw poll vote of ten zero one. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment to the house proposal of amendment to the Senate proposal of amendment. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment to the house proposal of amendment to the senate proposal of amendment. Member from Polanyi, can you please offer us a motion to deliver house bill two sixty six to the governor forthwith? [Speaker 13 ]: Madam Speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to deliver the H two sixty six to the governor forthwith. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Okay. We don't need a rule suspension for it. So the motion is to just deliver house bill two sixty six to the governor forthwith. [Speaker 13 ]: Madam Speaker, I make a motion to deliver h two sixty six to the governor forthwith. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: Thank you. The member from Polany moves that we deliver House Bill two sixty six to the governor forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favour, please say I. All those opposed, please say nay. The eyes appear to have it. The eyes do have it and you have ordered House Bill to sixty six to be delivered to the governor forthwith. Member from Poltenay, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to take up from the notice calendar for immediate consideration? The Committee of Conference report on Senate Bill one hundred and twenty three, which is an act relating to miscellaneous changes to laws related to motor vehicles. [Speaker 13 ]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules to take up off the notice calendar for immediate consideration s one two three. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Polteni moves that we suspend our rules to take up for up from the notice calendar for immediate consideration. Senate bill one twenty three. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have suspended rules to take up Senate Bill one twenty three for immediate consideration. Senate bill one twenty three is an act relating to miscellaneous changes to laws related to motor vehicles. The bill was referred to a committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two chambers. The committee of conference has met and considered the same and recommends that the house adopt its report, which is printed in today's calendar. Member from Swanton. [Speaker 26 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. S one twenty three, an act relating to miscellaneous changes to laws related to motor vehicles. Committee of vehicles. Committee of conference report starts on page four two seven six of today's house calendar if you want to follow along. We finished yesterday afternoon, late in the afternoon. And so when I came back into the building this morning, I went through the senate and they felt like they had won the conference and got what they wanted. And went up to the committee room and talked to all of our committee members and reviewed where we're at and the house members felt that we had actually won all of what we had wanted. So I guess you got the win win that you need and that you're looking to go forward. The about a half a dozen areas of contention, two or three of them really policy issues and the rest came down to timing issues. So in a kind of a a rare scenario, the section forty six for effective dates is rather important to most of what we decided in conference and we'll get to that as we go. The biggest policy and really substantially the only major money issue was in section nine related to, Vermonters that are eligible for SSI and SSDI. The senate had proposed a reduced fee for those, Vermonters eligible, and we had not included that in our house bill or in our house version, we had sent it back. I wanna take my last chance to remind everybody if you haven't heard anything else about transportation, you might remember there's a pretty significant financial issue with t fund monies and t fund monies going forward. So that was not in our house version. The senate had pushed very hard for it. There's two parts of it that we ultimately agreed. Number one, when the senate version of the original transportation bill had brought one point one million dollars over in pilot funds and used seven hundred thousand of those for a volunteer coordination project to increase the number of drivers in the Medicaid or the medical transport area, there was still four hundred thousand dollars unspent. The JFO estimates that this impact of these reduced fees is about three hundred and eight thousand dollars And so we felt that there was money there that was not coming directly out of the t fund piece. And we also negotiated that this would be implemented with July, first twenty twenty six. So this would be included in next year's budget process and building their The other another area of concern of sections in eighteen and nineteen. There was language that was added around education to, non driver identification cards, information and privilege cards, and we inserted and agreed the language. It is the intent of the general assembly that the commissioner of motor vehicles to the extent permitted by federal law ensures and that's the portion that was added to the extent permitted by federal law ensures that any individual is unable to or does not wish to comply with the requirements of the real ID act, etcetera, will be informed of their other options to obtain a operators privilege card and a non driver identification card. So there was a a slight language change there as permitted by federal law. On section nineteen right below that, what I one of the things I really want to point out is the Senate went along with the House's version that said, because of all of the area around driver identification and we require another one, before we return back in session next year so we can see what that impact has been. And that mining of the section of implementation dates that whole area is effective upon passage. There were, of course, what you can't see in the bill is all the sections that were left out or taken out. There was entire section around tinting tinting windows. There were three or four sections in related to that. And then in section forty, we had proposed to change a study to a report revolving around the appraised value of vehicles and around, inspections. And I would like to remind the sort of the second piece of big pieces to remember is our the madam speaker, your committee on house of transportation is committed to and has promised among many members here that we will be taking up the entire area of inspections related to its goals, its focus, and its review, and and its also its ability to adapt in the technological changes that are out there to vehicles. So I'm recommitted to that and we in the Senate went along with section forty, to change the study group to a report, and we will continue to work with that report in January when we come back. It's also the chance to remind that we will be working on inspections, but we also the DMV rollout for all of your constituents. The next phase of rollout for the modernization act is in November. Expect all driver's license renewals, etcetera, will all be handled online. There will be some impact to your constituents, but that will continues to be on time and on budget. So that but that will impact all of our constituents come November. There was a discussion and an effort by the Senate to remove, sections forty one, forty two, forty three revolving around bicycle language. They've been kept, but there was a change on implementation dates on effective dates. So there will be an education piece done and the implementation on the ability for bicycles to cross in the crosswalk and related to bicycle signals that will be put off until July first twenty twenty six. We also did the similar type of thing in relation to illegal trails in sections forty four and forty five. We didn't change any language. We accepted and agreed to or they ascended accepted and agreed to our language. We will have in section forty four the legislative intent regarding legal and trails to help clarify, some of that piece that will be effective, upon, on July first. And the, section forty five, which is related to the maintenance of trails, that effective date we push off till April first of twenty twenty six. So, effective dates. There's a description there. All of the driver ID, in relationship to driver IDs, real IDs will be effective upon passage. And the issues related to SSI and SSDI, that will be pushed off until the next budget cycle. The maintenance of trails will be next April of twenty six. Bicycles will also go to July of twenty six, and all other sections will be July of twenty twenty five. Madam speaker, the conferees, the committee of conference asks that the body supports the report. Thank you very much. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Are you ready for the question? Member from Waterbury. [Speaker 27 ]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanted to rise and thank the conference committee and the transportation committee for in particular their work on a couple of sections in this bill. One that wasn't under contention in conference committee, but I feel to rise in thanks, when presented on the floor the first time, and that's for youth who are exiting, state custody and the provisions that have been made in this bill for those youth and, helping to remove barriers. They often have many barriers as they leave state custody and oftentimes an uncertain future. And so it's helpful when we can remove barriers for them and so I am thankful for that. The second thing that I am thankful for is the provision that was under discussion and conference committee, and that is for individuals who receive SSI or SSDI live on very, very limited incomes, and anything we can do to assist them in making access to driver's licenses and other documentation through the Department of Motor Vehicles to be more affordable is appreciated. So I just want to extend our appreciation. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The eyes appear to have it. The eyes do have it, and you have adopted the report of the committee of conference. Member from Poltenay, can you please offer us a motion to suspend rules to message our action on senate bill one twenty three to the senate forthwith? [Speaker 13 ]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to message our actions on s one two three to the senate forthwith. [Chair Jill Krowinski]: The member from Poultney moves that we suspend our rules to message our action on senate bill one twenty three to the senate forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have suspended rules, message, or action on Senate Bill one hundred and twenty three to the Senate forthwith. Members, at this time, we are gonna recess and see, what bills we, get back from the Senate or if we have any committee conference reports coming back. So please keep an eye on your email. With that, the House will stand in recess until the fall of the gavel at one pm.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Session: 2025-05-30-9:30 a.m.

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: