Download this document in MS Word format


AutoFill Template

Journal of the House

________________

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008

At nine o'clock and thirty minutes in the forenoon the Speaker called the House to order.

Devotional Exercises

Devotional exercises were conducted by Speaker Gaye Symington of Jericho.

House Resolution Placed on Calendar

The Speaker placed before the House the following resolution which was read and in the Speaker’s discretion, placed on the Calendar for action tomorrow under Rule 52.

H.R. 32

House resolution, entitled

House resolution in support of the creation of a veterans’ transitional housing facility in central Vermont;

Whereas, according to federal government statistics, one-fourth of the nation’s homeless population consists of U.S. military veterans, and

Whereas, according to The Veterans Place, Inc., an organization founded to create a transitional housing facility in central Vermont, there are an estimated 150 homeless veterans in the state, and approximately 30 of these individuals reside in central Vermont, and

Whereas, because of this state’s proportionally large number of homeless veterans, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has ranked Vermont high on the priority list for the receipt of grant money for transitional assistance, and

Whereas, although a significant number of these homeless individuals are veterans of the Vietnam conflict, some served during Operation Desert Storm or even more recently during the current war in Iraq, and

Whereas, because posttraumatic stress disorder afflicts many veterans returning from Iraq, there is concern that the number of homeless veterans in Vermont and elsewhere will rise, and

 

Whereas, currently, the only facility in Vermont to provide temporary shelter specifically for veterans is the eight‑bed Dodge House in Rutland City, and

Whereas, The Veterans Place, Inc. envisions the establishment of a multi-service transitional housing facility for 15 or more central Vermont veterans, to be located in Barre or Montpelier, that would provide housing, food, legal services, dental care, job‑seeking support, substance‑abuse counseling, clothing, and personal hygiene assistance, and

Whereas, the organizations partnering with The Veterans Place, Inc. in this worthy endeavor include the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, various state agencies and departments, veterans’ service organizations, local businesses, homeless shelters, municipal governments, and Vermont’s congressional delegation, and

Whereas, if The Veterans Place, Inc. is able to raise $200,000.00 by April 4, 2008, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs through a capital grant application filed under its Homeless Provider Grant and Per Diem Program, is prepared to award the sum of $600,000.00 toward the establishment of this multi‑service housing facility, and

Whereas, the Hedding United Methodist Church Council, under the leadership of Rev. Ralph W. Howe has donated $10,000.00 toward the $200,000.00 amount, and

Whereas, although the state of Vermont is unable to support this project financially due to the tight fiscal constraints of the FY 2009 budget, it is important that the House of Representatives be recorded as supportive of this critically needed transitional residential facility, now therefore be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the Vermont House of Representatives strongly supports the efforts of The Veterans Place, Inc. to secure a $600,000.00 grant from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the establishment of a multi-service veterans transitional residential facility in central Vermont, and be it further

Resolved:  That the clerk of the house be directed to send copies of this resolution to Rev. Ralph W. Howe in care of The Veterans Place, Inc. in Barre City, to Jack McDermott at the governor’s veterans advisory council, to Clayton Clark at the office of veterans affairs, and to the Vermont congressional delegation.

Action on Bill Postponed

H. 889

House bill, entitled

An act relating to the state’s transportation program;

Was taken up and pending second reading of the bill, on motion of Rep. Westman of Cambridge, action on the bill was postponed until the next legislative day.

Third Reading; Bill Passed in Concurrence

With Proposals of Amendment

S. 280

Senate bill, entitled

An act relating to prosthetic parity;

Was taken up, read the third time and passed in concurrence with proposals of amendment.

Bill Amended; Action Postponed

H. 685

House bill, entitled

An act relating to enforcement of environmental laws;

Was taken up and pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Deen of Westminster moved to amend the bill as follows:

First:  In Sec. 3, 10 V.S.A. § 8007, by striking subdivision 8007(b)(2)(B) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

(B)  in the event that a respondent fails to comply with subdivision (A) of this subdivision (2), the respondent shall place the funds into either an attorneys’ interest on lawyers’ trust account (IOLTA) or an escrow account until such time as the terms of the agreement between the secretary and the respondent authorize the release of the funds, provided that the secretary may, as a term of the agreement, require payment of the funds as a monetary penalty if noncompliance with subdivision (A) of this subdivision (2) continues.

Second:  In Sec. 4, 10 V.S.A. § 8008, by striking subsection (b) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

(b)  An order shall include:

(1)  a statement of the facts which provide the basis for claiming the violation exists;

(2)  identification of the applicable statute, rule, permit, assurance or order;

(3)  a statement that the respondent has a right to a hearing under section 8012 of this title, and a description of the procedures for requesting a hearing;

(4)  a statement that the order is effective on receipt unless stayed on request for a hearing filed within 15 days; and

(5)  if applicable, a directive that the respondent take actions necessary to achieve compliance, to abate potential or existing environmental or health hazards, and to restore the environment to the condition existing before the violation; and

(6)  a statement that unless the respondent requests a hearing under this section, the order becomes a judicial order when filed with and signed by the environmental court.

Third:  By adding a Sec. 6a to read as follows:

Sec. 6a.  10 V.S.A. § 8012(b) is amended to read:

(b)  The environmental court shall have authority to:

* * *

(4)  to review and determine anew the amount of a penalty by applying the criteria set forth in subsection 8010(b) subsections 8010(b) and (c) of this title; and

* * *

Fourth:  In Sec. 7, by striking “fails to pay an assessed penalty” where it appears in the second sentence of 10 V.S.A. § 8014(b) and inserting “fails to pay a penalty assessed under 10 V.S.A. §§8007(b)(3), 8010(c), or 8012” in lieu thereof

Fifth:  In Sec. 10, 10 V.S.A. § 8221(b)(6), by striking “subsection 8010(b)” where it appears and inserting in lieu thereof “8010(b) and (c)

Sixth:  In Sec. 12 by striking “the attorney general and the land use panel” where it appears in the first sentence and inserting “the attorney general, the land use panel, and the department of information and innovation” in lieu thereof

Seventh:  By striking Sec. 13 in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

Sec. 13.  ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

On or before January 1, 2009, the agency of natural resources shall submit to the house committee on fish, wildlife and water resources and the senate committee on natural resources and energy a report that considers whether the commissioner of the department of fish and wildlife should deputize environmental enforcement officers employed by the agency as deputy game wardens.  If the agency recommends that environmental enforcement officers should be deputized as deputy game wardens, the agency shall include in its report a plan to execute such recommendation.

Eighth:  By striking Sec. 14 in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

Sec. 14.  AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES REPORT ON

               IMPLEMENTATION OF PERMITTING POTABLE WATER

               SUPPLIES AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

On or before January 15, 2009, the agency of natural resources shall submit to the house committee on fish, wildlife and water resources and the senate committee on natural resources and energy a status report regarding implementation of the potable water supply and wastewater system permitting program authorized under No. 32 of the Acts of 2007.  The report shall include:

(1)  The number of persons applying for permits for potable water supplies and wastewater systems;

(2)  The number of site visits completed by agency of natural resources personnel to review applications for permits for potable water supplies and wastewater systems; and

(3)  The number of and disposition of actions brought by the agency of natural resources to enforce the permit requirements for potable water supplies and wastewater systems.

Which was agreed to. 

Pending the third reading of the bill, on motion of Rep. Flory of Pittsford, action on the bill was postponed until the end of the Orders of the Day.

Bill Amended, Read Third Time and Passed

H. 887

House bill, entitled

An act relating to health care reform;

Was taken up and pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Chen of Mendon moved to amend the bill as follows:

     By striking Sec. 37(2) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

(2) The sum of $50,000 is appropriated from the general fund to the department of health and shall be deposited in the loan forgiveness/incentive scholarship fund and used for the purposes of the loan forgiveness program for health care providers through the dental student incentive loan program.  Such funds, in addition to monies appropriated for this program elsewhere, shall provide total funding of $150,000 in fiscal year 2009.

Which was agreed to. 

Pending the third reading of the bill Rep. Scheuermann of Stowe moved to amend the bill as follows:

First by striking Sec. 12(a)(2) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

(2)  The former spouse shall be eligible for coverage pursuant to this section through the member's participation in a group or blanket accident and health insurance policy, while such policy remains in force or is replaced by another group or blanket policy covering the member, until the earliest of the following events occurs:

(A)  The three-year anniversary of the final decree of divorce or dissolution or a legal separation;

(B)  The remarriage or civil union of the former spouse;

(C)  The remarriage or civil union of the member;

(D)  The death of the member;

(E) Termination of the member’s insurance due to job termination or non-payment of premium;

(F) Eligibility of former spouse for group insurance coverage as a result of employment;

(G) The enrollment of a domestic partner of the member in the member’s insurance policy;

(H) Non-payment of premium by either member or former spouse; or

(I)  Such earlier time as provided by the final decree of divorce or dissolution or a legal separation.

 

Second by striking Sec. 13 in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

§ 4090i.  PAYMENT FOR POST-DIVORCE COVERAGE 

Upon a decree of divorce or dissolution or a legal separation, if one spouse is a member of a group health insurance plan and the employer or any other sponsor is responsible for the payment of the premium required by the insurer as the consideration for providing coverage to an ex-spouse, such premium shall be paid to the insurance carrier either by the health insurance plan member, the ex-spouse of the member, or by both the member and the ex-spouse as they shall agree or as shall be ordered in the decree by the court.  The provisions of this section shall apply to dental coverage provided by such group health insurance plan and shall apply whether or not the ex-spouse is receiving child support payments.  If any aspect of the insurance coverage described in this section is taxable, taxes shall be paid by the insurance plan member, not the employer or other plan sponsor.

Third by striking Sec. 14(e) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a family health insurance plan shall include the adult children up to the age of 23, so long as the child is unmarried, has no dependents of his or her own, is a resident of the state of Vermont, and does not have health insurance coverage through any branch of the military or access to group coverage through his or her employment. 

(f) If the parent of an adult child described in subsection (e) above is a member of a group health insurance plan and the employer or any other sponsor is responsible for the payment of the premium required by the insurer as the consideration for providing coverage to the adult child, such premium shall be paid to the insurance carrier either by the health insurance plan member or the adult child

(g) If the insurance coverage described in subsection (e) is taxable, taxes shall be paid by the insurance plan member, not the employer or other plan sponsor.

(h) The provisions of this section shall apply to dental coverage provided by such group health insurance plan and shall apply whether or not the ex-spouse is receiving child support payments.

Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill as recommeded by Rep. Scheurermann of Stowe? Rep. Baker of West Rutland demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.  The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the House amend the bill as recommeded by Rep. Scheurermann of Stowe? was decided in the negative.  Yeas, 49.  Nays, 95.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Adams of Hartland

Ainsworth of Royalton

Baker of West Rutland

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Branagan of Georgia

Brennan of Colchester

Canfield of Fair Haven

Clark of Vergennes

Clerkin of Hartford

Crawford of Burke

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Flory of Pittsford

Grenier of St. Johnsbury

Helm of Castleton

Hube of Londonderry

Johnson of Canaan

Koch of Barre Town

Komline of Dorset

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

Lawrence of Lyndon

Lewis of Derby

Livingston of Manchester

Marcotte of Coventry

McAllister of Highgate

McDonald of Berlin

McFaun of Barre Town

McNeil of Rutland Town

Morley of Barton

Morrissey of Bennington

Myers of Essex

O'Donnell of Vernon

Otterman of Topsham

Oxholm of Vergennes

Peaslee of Guildhall

Scheuermann of Stowe

Turner of Milton

Valliere of Barre City

Westman of Cambridge

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington


Those who voted in the negative are:


Allard of St. Albans Town

Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Barnard of Richmond

Bissonnette of Winooski

Botzow of Pownal

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Chen of Mendon

Cheney of Norwich

Clarkson of Woodstock

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Copeland-Hanzas

of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Courcelle of Rutland City

Davis of Washington

Deen of Westminster

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Godin of Milton

Grad of Moretown

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Howard of Rutland City

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hunt of Essex

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jerman of Essex

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larson of Burlington

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lippert of Hinesburg

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Malcolm of Pawlet

Manwaring of Wilmington

Marek of Newfane

Martin, C. of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

Masland of Thetford

McCormack of Rutland City

McCullough of Williston

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Monti of Barre City

Mook of Bennington

Moran of Wardsboro

Mrowicki of Putney

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

Ojibway of Hartford

Partridge of Windham

Pearson of Burlington

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Peterson of Williston

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Potter of Clarendon

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Spengler of Colchester

Stevens of Shoreham

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Weston of Burlington

Wheeler of Derby

Zenie of Colchester

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:


Audette of S. Burlington

Frank of Underhill

Hosford of Waitsfield

Kilmartin of Newport City

LaVoie of Swanton

Orr of Charlotte

Perry of Richford

Pugh of S. Burlington


 

     Pending the third reading of the bill Rep. McDonald of Berlin moved to amend the bill as follows:

First:  In subdivision (a)(3) of Sec. 40, 18  V.S.A. § 9418a, by inserting “or” following “health maintenance organization” and by striking “, or a workers’ compensation policy of a casualty insurer licensed to do business in Vermont

Second:  In subdivision (a)(2) of Sec. 41, 18 V.S.A. § 9418b, by inserting “or” following “health maintenance organization” and by striking “, or a workers’ compensation policy of a casualty insurer licensed to do business in Vermont

Third:  In Sec. 45, by striking “and” following “department of labor” in subdivision (5), striking the period following “health care providers” in subdivision (6) and inserting in lieu thereof“; and”, and adding a subdivision (7) to read:

(7)  Uniform claims processing standards for workers’ compensation insurers.

     Which was agreed to. 

     Thereupon the bill was read a third time. 

     Pending the question, Shall the bill pass?  Rep. Morrissey of Bennington demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.  The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill pass? was decided in the affirmative.  Yeas, 87.  Nays, 55.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Barnard of Richmond

Bissonnette of Winooski

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Botzow of Pownal

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Chen of Mendon

Cheney of Norwich

Clarkson of Woodstock

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Copeland-Hanzas

of Bradford

Courcelle of Rutland City

Deen of Westminster

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Godin of Milton

Grad of Moretown

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Howard of Rutland City

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hunt of Essex

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jerman of Essex

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larson of Burlington

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lippert of Hinesburg

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Malcolm of Pawlet

Manwaring of Wilmington

Marek of Newfane

Martin, C. of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

Masland of Thetford

McCormack of Rutland City

McCullough of Williston

McFaun of Barre Town

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Mook of Bennington

Moran of Wardsboro

Mrowicki of Putney

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

Ojibway of Hartford

Partridge of Windham

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Peterson of Williston

Potter of Clarendon

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Spengler of Colchester

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Weston of Burlington

Wheeler of Derby

Zenie of Colchester


Those who voted in the negative are:


Adams of Hartland

Ainsworth of Royalton

Allard of St. Albans Town

Baker of West Rutland

Branagan of Georgia

Brennan of Colchester

Canfield of Fair Haven

Clark of Vergennes

Clerkin of Hartford

Corcoran of Bennington

Crawford of Burke

Davis of Washington

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Edwards of Brattleboro

Errecart of Shelburne

Flory of Pittsford

Grenier of St. Johnsbury

Haas of Rochester

Helm of Castleton

Hube of Londonderry

Johnson of Canaan

Kilmartin of Newport City

Koch of Barre Town

Komline of Dorset

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

Lawrence of Lyndon

Lewis of Derby

Livingston of Manchester

Marcotte of Coventry

McAllister of Highgate

McDonald of Berlin

McNeil of Rutland Town

Monti of Barre City

Morley of Barton

Morrissey of Bennington

Myers of Essex

O'Donnell of Vernon

Otterman of Topsham

Oxholm of Vergennes

Pearson of Burlington

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Randall of Troy

Scheuermann of Stowe

Stevens of Shoreham

Turner of Milton

Valliere of Barre City

Westman of Cambridge

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:


Frank of Underhill

Hosford of Waitsfield

LaVoie of Swanton

Orr of Charlotte

Perry of Richford

Pugh of S. Burlington

Smith of Morristown


 

 

 

Message from the Senate No. 47

     A message was received from the Senate by Mr. Marshall, its Assistant Secretary, as follows:

Madam Speaker:

I am directed to inform the House that the Senate has considered a bill originating in the House of the following title:

H. 563.  An act relating to the uniform commercial code.

And has passed the same in concurrence.

The Senate has considered a joint resolution originating in the House of the following title:

J.R.H. 44.  Joint resolution approving the Vermont information technology leaders’ (VITL) health information technology plan as required by 22 V.S.A. § 903(g).

     And has adopted the same in concurrence with proposal of amendment in the adoption of which the concurrence of the House is requested.

Rules Suspended; Bill Read Second Time; Consideration Interrupted

H. 891

On motion of Rep. Adams of Hartland, the rules were suspended and House bill, entitled

An act relating to making appropriations for the support of government;

Appearing on the Calendar for notice, was taken up for immediate consideration. 

Rep. Heath of Westford spoke for the committee on Appropriations.

Rep. Smith of Morristown, for the committee on Ways and Means, to which had been referred the bill, reported in favor of its passage.

Recess

At twelve o’clock and twenty-five minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker declared a recess until the fall of the gavel.

At one o’clock and thirty minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker called the House to order.

 

 

Consideration Resumed; Consideration Interrupted by Recess

H. 891

Consideration resumed on House bill, entitled

An act relating to making appropriations for the support of government;

     Pending the question, Shall the bill be read a third time? Rep. Heath of Westford moved to amend the bill as follows:

     First:  On page 1, line 6, by striking out “2007” and inserting in lieu thereof “2008”

     Second:  On page 39, line 4 by striking out the figure “133,008,878” and inserting in lieu thereof the figure “133,758,878” and on line 8 by striking out the figure “8,936,672”, and inserting in lieu thereof the figure “8,186,672”

     Third:  On page 56, lines 8 and 14, by striking out the figure “139,073,290” and inserting in lieu thereof the figure “$139,081,290”, and on line 10, by striking out the figure “177,693” and inserting in lieu thereof the figure “$185,693”

     Fourth:  On page 60, lines 6 and 8, by striking out the figure “139,096” and inserting in lieu thereof the figure “$131,096”

     Fifth:  On page 91, line 12, by striking out the figure “8,000,000” and inserting in lieu there of the figure “8,852,658”

     Sixth:  On page 92, by striking out line 7 in its entirety and inserting a new subsection (c) to read as follows:

(c) Vermont housing finance agency (VHFA) and the Vermont economic development authority (VEDA) per Sec. 5.802(a)(3)

     Seventh:  On page 93, line 1 by striking out the figure “$9,783,258” and inserting in lieu thereof the figure “$14,383,258”, and on line 20, by striking out the figure “$500,000”, and on line 21 by striking out the figure “$5,345,445”, and inserting in lieu thereof the figure “$4,595,445”

     Eighth:  On page 104, after line 13, by adding a new subsection (b) to read as follows:

(b)  Two (2) full time exempt assistant attorney general positions (#047010, #047007) shall be transferred from the department of human resources to the office of the attorney general. 

     Ninth:  On page 108, line 20, by striking out the word “reques” and inserting in lieu thereof “request”

     Tenth:  In Sec. 5.202, on page 111, by striking out lines 13-21 in their entirety, and on page 112, by striking out lines 1-21 in their entirety, and on page 113, by striking out lines 1-16 and by adding a new subsection (c) to read as follows 

(c) The secretary of human services and the office of Vermont health access shall explore the possibility of receiving federal matching funds to maximize its ability to contribute to the health IT-fund established in section 4089k of Title 8.

     Eleventh:  On page 133, line 12, by striking out the figure “692,000” and inserting in lieu thereof the figure “792,000”

     Twelfth:  On page 135, after line 8 by inserting a new subsection (c) to read as follows:

(c) Of this general fund appropriation, $109,000 shall be used as a grant to Dismas House of Vermont, Inc.

     Thirteenth:  On page 147, line 14 by striking out “2.804” and inserting in lieu thereof 2.803”

     Fourteenth:  On pages 167 and 168 by striking out Sec. 6.017 in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof a new Sec. 6.017 to read as follows:

Sec. 6.017.  33 V.S.A. § 2073(d)(2) is amended to read:

(2) An individual shall contribute the following base cost-sharing amounts which shall be indexed to the increases established under 42 C.F.R. § 423.104(d)(5)(iv) and then rounded to the nearest dollar amount:

(A) In the case of recipients whose household income is no greater than 150 percent of the federal poverty level, such premium shall be $17.00 $13.00 per month or $156.00 per year in the case of recipients whose household income is no greater than 150 percent of the federal poverty level.

(B) In the case of recipients whose household income is greater than 150 percent of the federal poverty level and no greater than 175 percent of the federal poverty level, the premium shall be $23.00 $17.00 per month or $204.00 per year in the case of recipients whose household income is greater than 150 percent of the federal poverty level and no greater than 175 percent of the federal poverty level.

(C) In the case of recipients whose household income is greater than 175 percent of the federal poverty level and no greater than 225 percent of the federal poverty level, the premium shall be $50.00 $35.00 per month or $420.00 per year in the case of recipients whose household income is greater than 175 percent of the federal poverty level and no greater than 225 percent of the federal poverty level.

     Fifteenth:  On page 176, after line 13, by inserting a new Sec. 6.023 to read as follows:

Sec. 6.023.      10  V.S.A. § 1 is amended to read:

§ 1.  COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(a) There is established a commission on the future of economic development to cooperatively plan the free enterprise economy of Vermont.  The commission is established by the legislature for the purpose of fostering cooperative planning in recognition that the economy of the state will be stronger with a consensus on common goals and directives and with an approach that builds on the unique strengths and challenges of doing business in Vermont.

(b) The commission shall consist of 12 voting members. The governor shall appoint five members, including a chair of the commission; the speaker of the house shall appoint one member, who shall be a member of the house of representatives; and the committee on committees shall appoint one member, who shall be a member of the senate. The speaker of the house and the president pro tempore of the senate shall jointly appoint two members who are not legislators. The Vermont labor council shall appoint one member representing labor; the Vermont association of nonprofit organizations shall appoint one member representing nonprofit organizations, and the governor shall appoint a self-employed person. In addition, the secretary of commerce and community development and the executive director of the economic incentive review board shall serve as ex officio nonvoting members.

(b) (c) The first commission shall serve a term from the date of appointment through June 30, 2012, and beginning July 1, 2012, appointed commission members shall serve for four-year terms. Beginning July 1, 2012, three of the five at large members to be appointed by the governor, and one of the two non-legislative members to be appointed jointly by the speaker of the house and president pro tempore of the Senate, shall serve an initial term of two years. Except for these initial appointments, all appointed members shall serve four year terms, and a member may be reappointed for consecutive terms. Board members shall be entitled to payments for per diem and expenses as provided under section 1010 of Title 32; and legislative members shall be entitled to payments for per diem and expenses as provided in 2 V.S.A. § 406.

(c) (d) On September 15, 2007 December 1, 2008, and thereafter, every five years beginning December 1, 2011 December 1, 2012, the commission shall report to the senate committee on economic development, housing and general affairs, the senate committee on finance, the house committee on commerce, the house committee on ways and means and the governor a proposed five-year economic development plan for the state of Vermont. The commission may contract with a consultant for purposes of developing the plan, and shall apply to the emergency board for any expenses the commission may incur in its official duties.

(d) (e) The commission shall report to the joint fiscal committee at such times as the committee shall request on the progress of the commission's economic planning.

(e) (f) Each commission's five-year plan shall:

(1) Establish a vision and identify the long-term goals for Vermont economic development and job retention in light of the local and global economic climate and for increasing the well-being of Vermonters and their communities.

(2) Include a meaningful benchmark process that sets economic development goals with an approach that builds on the unique strengths and challenges of doing business in Vermont and measures the state's position relative to those goals.

(3) The plan shall identify Identify prioritized criteria by which to evaluate legislative proposals for economic development programs in the coming five years which will best serve the goals of the five-year plan.

(f) (g)  In fulfilling its economic development planning responsibilities, the commission shall:

(1) Conduct a planning process planning processes that is are open and inclusive, with broad-based public engagement ensuring participation that is demographically and geographically representative of the state and includes input from a wide range of perspectives, expertise and interests, including the general assembly, state agencies and the administration, regional and local planning and development organizations, municipalities, the private sector, and business organizations, including owners, knowledgeable in the areas of economic interest such as agriculture, social and human services, energy, education, child care, environmental issues, science and technology, arts and culture, transportation, telecommunications, housing, workforce development, and tourism and recreation.

(2) Build a plan by coordinating and considering existing economic development information and strategic plans produced by other organizations and agencies, such as regional economic development strategic plans, comprehensive economic development strategies (CEDS), legislative initiatives, and research and reports by organizations such as the Vermont business roundtable, the Vermont council on rural development, the Vermont technology council, the Vermont sustainable jobs fund, and the University of Vermont.

(3) Include an examination and re-evaluation of the issues critical to encouraging all sizes of business to develop in Vermont, including workforce development, development of higher education institutions, infrastructure development, quality of life issues and tax policy.

(4) Discuss and develop possible working definitions a working definition of the creative economy in the state, identifying and aggregating the creative, artistic, inventive and cultural enterprises, and other new future development sectors of the economy, including media design, sustainable technologies, added value manufacturing, natural resource industries, and environmental technologies, and “green” technologies that comprise part of the state's creative technology and review possible measures and indicators of economic benefit, costs, and contributions to the state from the creative economy sector.

(5) Include the development of a meaningful benchmark process that sets economic development goals appropriate for Vermont and measures the state's position relative to those goals.

(6) Consider and make recommendations to the legislature on any other aspect of economic development that the commission deems appropriate to further the policy statement and goals established in the plan.

(g) (h) The plan commission on the future of economic development shall also consider:

(1) The cost-effectiveness of targeted business incentive grants and nonmonetary business aid such as permit and regulatory assistance or other assistance and increased development of infrastructure to further the plan’s purpose and goals.

(2) Whether targeting incentives to regions of the state with high unemployment, low wages, or other indications of need for economic development and job creation would better advance the long-term plan’s purposes and goals.

(3) Whether Vermont tax policies place Vermont businesses at a competitive disadvantage and how best to address these policies and mitigate their effects.

(4) The specific needs for development or improvement of transportation and telecommunications systems.

(5) The types of postsecondary institution expansion of development which would attract research and technology firms.

(6) The advantages and disadvantages of privatizing all or a portion of economic development functions of the state to further the plan’s purposes and goals.

     Sixteenth:  On page 176 after line 17, by adding a new subsection (b) to read as follows:

(b) Sec. 5.101(b) shall take effect June 8, 2008.

     Seventeenth: In Sec. 5.110 (Center for Crime Victims Services), by striking subsection (b) in its entirety and in lieu thereof inserting a new subsection (b) to read:

(b) 13 V.S.A. § 5363 (d)(1)(A) is amended to read:

(A) was first ordered by the court to receive restitution on or after July 1, 2004.

     Eighteenth:  In Sec. 5.110 (Center for Crime Victim Studies), in subsection (c), by adding an additional sentence at the end of the subsection to read:

    “Additionally, it is the intent of the legislature that in fiscal year 2011 the $182,215 grant to the department of children and families for the domestic violence unit, the $150,000 grant to the Vermont network against domestic violence, and the $100,000 grant to the department of corrections victim’s services be supported with general funds.”

     Nineteenth: In Sec. 5.211 (Health- health improvement), by striking subsection (e) in its entirety and in lieu thereof inserting a new subsection (e) to read:

(e) “Of this appropriation, $100,000 is allocated for the Vermont student assistance corporation for loan forgiveness programs for health care providers through the dental hygienist incentive loan program, the nurse incentive loan program, and the dental student incentive loan program.

     Pending the question, Whall the bill be amended as recommended by Rep. Heath of Westford?

Recess

At three o’clock and forty five minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker declared a recess until the fall of the gavel.

At four o’clock and forty minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker called the House to order.

Consideration Resumed; Bill Amended;

Consideration Interrupted by Recess

H. 891

Consideration resumed on House bill, entitled

An act relating to making appropriations for the support of government;

     Thereupon the recurring question, Shall the bill be amended as recommended by Rep. Heath of Westford? was agreed to.

     Pending the question, Shall the bill be read a third time? Rep. O’Donnell of Vernon moved to amend the bill as follows:

     First:  In Sec. 2.201, page 38, line 12, by striking out the figure “3,546,153” and inserting in lieu thereof the figure 3,576,153  and on line 15, by striking out the figure “4,235,112 ” and inserting in lieu thereof the figure 4,265,112  and on lines 13 and 20, by striking out the figure “13,527,758” and inserting in lieu thereof the figure 13,557,758 

     Second:  In Sec. 5.201, page 109, after line 19 by adding a new subsection (e) to read as follows:

(e)  Of the funds appropriated to the secretary, $30,000.00 shall be available for the pathways to housing program.

     Which was agreed to.

     Pending the question, Shall the bill be read a third time? Rep. Donahue of Northfield moved that the bill be amended as follows:

     By striking subsection (b) of Sec. 5.008, subsection (c) of Sec. 5.202, and Secs. 6.021 and 6.022 in their entirety and renumbering the sections of the bill and internal references to be numerically correct

Pending the question, Shall the bill be amended as recommeded by Rep. Donahue of Northfield?  Rep. Otterman of Topsham demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.  The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill be amended as recommeded by Rep. Donahue of Northfield? was decided in the negative.  Yeas, 19.  Nays, 119.

 

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Adams of Hartland

Ainsworth of Royalton

Clerkin of Hartford

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Flory of Pittsford

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hube of Londonderry

Kilmartin of Newport City

Koch of Barre Town

Larocque of Barnet

Lawrence of Lyndon

Livingston of Manchester

Marcotte of Coventry

Ojibway of Hartford

Otterman of Topsham

Turner of Milton


Those who voted in the negative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Allard of St. Albans Town

Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Baker of West Rutland

Barnard of Richmond

Bissonnette of Winooski

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Botzow of Pownal

Branagan of Georgia

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Canfield of Fair Haven

Chen of Mendon

Cheney of Norwich

Clark of Vergennes

Clarkson of Woodstock

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Copeland-Hanzas

of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Courcelle of Rutland City

Crawford of Burke

Davis of Washington

Deen of Westminster

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Godin of Milton

Grad of Moretown

Grenier of St. Johnsbury

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Helm of Castleton

Howard of Rutland City

Hunt of Essex

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Komline of Dorset

Krawczyk of Bennington

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larrabee of Danville

Larson of Burlington

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lewis of Derby

Lippert of Hinesburg

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Malcolm of Pawlet

Manwaring of Wilmington

Marek of Newfane

Martin, C. of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

Masland of Thetford

McAllister of Highgate

McCormack of Rutland City

McCullough of Williston

McDonald of Berlin

McFaun of Barre Town

McNeil of Rutland Town

Milkey of Brattleboro

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Mook of Bennington

Moran of Wardsboro

Morley of Barton

Morrissey of Bennington

Mrowicki of Putney

Myers of Essex

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

O'Donnell of Vernon

Oxholm of Vergennes

Partridge of Windham

Pearson of Burlington

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Spengler of Colchester

Stevens of Shoreham

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Valliere of Barre City

Westman of Cambridge

Weston of Burlington

Wheeler of Derby

Winters of Williamstown

Zenie of Colchester

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:


Aswad of Burlington

Brennan of Colchester

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Hosford of Waitsfield

Jerman of Essex

Johnson of Canaan

LaVoie of Swanton

Miller of Shaftsbury

Monti of Barre City

Orr of Charlotte

Wright of Burlington


 

     Pending the question, Shall the bill be read a third time? Rep. Corcoran of Bennington moved that the bill be amended as follows:

First: By striking Sec. 2.604 and adding a new Sec. 2.604 to read as follows:

Sec. 2.604.  Transportation – Program Development

Personal services                                                35,192,941

Operating expenses                            117,605,490

Grants                                                                               23,370,050

    Total                                                                 176,168,481

Sources of funds

Transportation fund                            28,851,365

Local match                                                        1,476,992

Federal funds                                                      136,328,874

Interdepartmental transfer 3,911,250

General obligation bond fund       5,600,000

    Total                                                                 176,168,481

Second: By adding a new Sec. 5.605 to read:

Sec. 5.605  Transportation – Program Development (Sec. 2.604)

(a) Of this appropriation, $2,700,000 in federal funds is contingent upon the state’s enactment of a primary seat belt law or the state’s satisfaction of other federal requirements regarding average seat belt usage, and further upon congressional appropriations. Such funds are appropriated to the extent they are made available to the state.

     Which was agreed to.

     Pending the question Shall the bill be read a third time? Rep. Marcotte of Coventry moved that the bill be amended as follows:

     On page 126, following line 11, by inserting a new Sec. 5.2111 to read:

Sec. 5.2111   Health – Community public health (Sec. 2.216)

     (a)  Of this appropriation, the amount of $50,000 shall be expended by the department for lead abatement education.  The department is also authorized to solicit and accept grants and donations to be used to supplement the expenditure directed by this subsection.

     Which was agreed to.

     Pending the question,  Shall the bill be read a third time?  Reps. Krawczyk of Bennington, Morrissey of Bennington, Valliere of Barre City, Koch of Barre Town, and McDonald of Berlin moved to amend the bill as follows:

     First:  on page 58, in line 17, by striking the figure “523,986” and inserting in lieu thereof the figure “413,986”;  in line 18 by striking the figure “1,126,998” and by inserting in lieu thereof the figure “1,016,998”; in line 20, by striking the figure”125,000” and inserting in lieu the figure “15,000”; and on page 59, in line 2, by striking the figure “1,126,998” and by inserting in lieu thereof the figure “1,016,998”.

     Second: on page 59, following line 17, by inserting a new Sec. 2.2481 to read:

Sec. 2.2481 Homeless Veterans; Transitional Housing.

     The amount of $110,000 of general funds is appropriated to The Vermont Veterans’ Place, Inc., to provide transitional housing for homeless veterans.

     Pending the question, Shall the bill be amended as recommended by Reps. Krawczyk of Bennington, et al?  Rep. Komline of Dorset demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.  The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill be amended as recommended by Reps. Krawczyk of Bennington, et al?  was decided in the negative.  Yeas, 55.  Nays, 82.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Adams of Hartland

Allard of St. Albans Town

Anderson of Montpelier

Baker of West Rutland

Barnard of Richmond

Botzow of Pownal

Branagan of Georgia

Canfield of Fair Haven

Clark of Vergennes

Clerkin of Hartford

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Corcoran of Bennington

Crawford of Burke

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Flory of Pittsford

Godin of Milton

Grenier of St. Johnsbury

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hube of Londonderry

Kilmartin of Newport City

Komline of Dorset

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

Lawrence of Lyndon

Lewis of Derby

Livingston of Manchester

Manwaring of Wilmington

Marcotte of Coventry

McAllister of Highgate

McDonald of Berlin

McFaun of Barre Town

McNeil of Rutland Town

Monti of Barre City

Mook of Bennington

Morrissey of Bennington

Myers of Essex

O'Donnell of Vernon

Oxholm of Vergennes

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pellett of Chester

Perry of Richford

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Scheuermann of Stowe

Spengler of Colchester

Stevens of Shoreham

Valliere of Barre City

Wheeler of Derby

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester


Those who voted in the negative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Ancel of Calais

Andrews of Rutland City

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Bissonnette of Winooski

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Chen of Mendon

Cheney of Norwich

Clarkson of Woodstock

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Courcelle of Rutland City

Davis of Washington

Deen of Westminster

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Helm of Castleton

Howard of Rutland City

Hunt of Essex

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larson of Burlington

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lippert of Hinesburg

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Malcolm of Pawlet

Marek of Newfane

Martin, C. of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

Masland of Thetford

McCullough of Williston

Milkey of Brattleboro

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Moran of Wardsboro

Morley of Barton

Mrowicki of Putney

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

Ojibway of Hartford

Orr of Charlotte

Otterman of Topsham

Partridge of Windham

Pearson of Burlington

Peltz of Woodbury

Peterson of Williston

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Turner of Milton

Westman of Cambridge

Weston of Burlington

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:


Ainsworth of Royalton

Aswad of Burlington

Brennan of Colchester

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Grad of Moretown

Hosford of Waitsfield

Jerman of Essex

Johnson of Canaan

Koch of Barre Town

LaVoie of Swanton

McCormack of Rutland City

Miller of Shaftsbury


 

     Rep. Manwaring of Wilmington explained her vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     As we recently marked the loss of 4000 soldiers in Iraq, Vermont remains the state which has lost the most soldiers per capita.  While we can’t bring them back, we can help their fellow soldiers who have returned to move into normal life.”

     Rep. Zuckerman of Burlington explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     It is a false choice between our veterans and court mandated expenditures.  We all value and respect our veterans.”

     Rep. Marek of Newfane explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     Every single member of this House honors our veterans.  Members of my family have served our country overseas in 3 centuries and one serves us today.  However, this amendment tried to reverse a Vermont court decision on the floor of the House.  We can and should find this money elsewhere.”

     Rep. Canfield of Fair Haven explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     As a matter of legislative priority, I vote yes on this amendment.  This money would go to a most notable project to help our homeless veterans who did not hesitate to help and serve our State and our Country.”

Recess

At six o’clock and forty-five minutes in the evening, the Speaker declared a recess until eight o’clock and fifteen minutes in the evening.

At eight o’clock and twenty five minutes in the evening, the Speaker called the House to order.

Consideration Resumed; Bill Amended; Third Reading Ordered

     H. 891

An act relating to making appropriations for the support of government;

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read a third time?  Reps. Otterman of Topsham, Ancel of Calais, Clark of Vergennes and Obuchowski of Rockingham moved that the bill be amended as follows:

     By adding a new section to be Sec. 5.3021 to read:

Sec. 5.3021.  COLLABORATION AMONG SCHOOL BOARDS, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, SELECTBOARDS, AND CITY COUNCILS;  INCENTIVE FUND

(a)  The general assembly finds that:

(1)  School boards, school administrators, selectboards, and city councils in Vermont and around the country have begun to collaborate in creative and exciting ways.

(2)  Collaboration often includes projects in which two or more supervisory unions or two or more school districts share or merge services, equipment, or facilities by, for example, entering into an arrangement for whole-grade sharing, centralized purchasing, sharing of facilities, coordinated provision of special education services, or other similar initiatives.

(3)  Many of these collaborative projects have resulted in lowered education spending or a reduction in spending growth.

(4)  Further efficiencies and resulting cost-savings could be realized if school boards and school administrators entered into collaborative agreements with selectboards and city councils.

(5)  It is important to support and encourage collaboration among school boards, school administrators, selectboards, and city councils that will result in property tax savings without compromising the excellence of our public schools.

(b)  The commissioner of education, the Vermont league of cities and towns, the Vermont superintendents association, the Vermont school boards association, the Vermont principals’ association, and the Vermont national education association jointly shall develop a detailed plan to create an incentive fund to distribute grants, low-interest loans, no-interest loans, or any combination of the three to encourage collaborative initiatives among school districts, supervisory unions, and local governmental entities that will result in property tax savings.  They shall present the plan to the house and senate committees on education, the house committee on ways and means, and the senate committee on finance on or before January 15, 2009.

Which was agreed to. 

Thereupon third reading of the bill was ordered.

Bill Amended, Read Third Time and Passed

H. 890

House bill, entitled

An act relating to compensation for certain state employees;

Was taken up and pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Atkins of Winooski moved to amend the bill as follows:

First:   In Sec. 9, after “earning up to” and before “$28.85/hour” by inserting “and including

Second:  In Sec. 10, subdivision (a)(1)(C), in the first sentence, by striking “anticipated” and inserting in lieu thereof “excess

Third:  In Sec. 10, subdivision (a)(1)(C), in the second sentence, by striking “funds” and inserting in lieu thereof “fund

Fourth:  In Sec. 10, subdivision (a)(2)(B), after “distribution” and before “the agency of transportation” by inserting “to

Fifth:  In Sec. 10, subdivision (a)(2)(C), in the first sentence, by striking “anticipated” and inserting in lieu thereof “excess

Sixth:  In Sec. 10, subsection (b), by striking “units” and inserting in lieu thereof “unit

Seventh:  In Sec. 10, by adding subsections (d) and (e) as follows:

(d)  With due regard to the possible availability of other funds, for fiscal year 2009, the secretary of administration may transfer from the various appropriations and various funds and from the receipts of the liquor control board such sums as the secretary may determine to be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act to the various agencies supported by state funds.

(e)  This section shall include sufficient funding to ensure administration of exempt attorney pay plans, including deputy state’s attorneys and public defenders, subject to the approval of the secretary of administration.

Eighth:  In Sec. 12, subdivision (e)(2)(A), by striking “to be

Which was agreed to. 

Thereupon, the bill was read the third time and pending the question, Shall the bill pass?  Rep. Komline of Dorset demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.  The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill pass? was decided in the affirmative.  Yeas, 99.  Nays, 37.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Barnard of Richmond

Bissonnette of Winooski

Botzow of Pownal

Branagan of Georgia

Bray of New Haven

Cheney of Norwich

Clarkson of Woodstock

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Courcelle of Rutland City

Crawford of Burke

Davis of Washington

Deen of Westminster

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Godin of Milton

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Howard of Rutland City

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hunt of Essex

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keogh of Burlington

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larocque of Barnet

Larson of Burlington

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lewis of Derby

Lippert of Hinesburg

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Malcolm of Pawlet

Manwaring of Wilmington

Marek of Newfane

Martin, C. of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

Masland of Thetford

McCormack of Rutland City

McCullough of Williston

McFaun of Barre Town

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Monti of Barre City

Mook of Bennington

Moran of Wardsboro

Morley of Barton

Mrowicki of Putney

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

Ojibway of Hartford

Orr of Charlotte

Partridge of Windham

Pearson of Burlington

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Spengler of Colchester

Stevens of Shoreham

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Westman of Cambridge

Weston of Burlington

Wheeler of Derby

Zenie of Colchester

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those who voted in the negative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Adams of Hartland

Allard of St. Albans Town

Baker of West Rutland

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Browning of Arlington

Canfield of Fair Haven

Clark of Vergennes

Clerkin of Hartford

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Flory of Pittsford

Grenier of St. Johnsbury

Helm of Castleton

Hube of Londonderry

Kilmartin of Newport City

Komline of Dorset

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larrabee of Danville

Lawrence of Lyndon

Livingston of Manchester

Marcotte of Coventry

McAllister of Highgate

McDonald of Berlin

Morrissey of Bennington

Myers of Essex

O'Donnell of Vernon

Otterman of Topsham

Oxholm of Vergennes

Peaslee of Guildhall

Scheuermann of Stowe

Turner of Milton

Valliere of Barre City

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington


Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:


Ainsworth of Royalton

Aswad of Burlington

Brennan of Colchester

Chen of Mendon

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Grad of Moretown

Hosford of Waitsfield

Jerman of Essex

Johnson of Canaan

Keenan of St. Albans City

Koch of Barre Town

LaVoie of Swanton

McNeil of Rutland Town


 

     Rep. Browning of Arlington explained her vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     Why are we giving these raises?  Costs are rising and budgets are tight.  We are contractually obligated to give raises to collective bargaining units, which would have been done without this bill but we are not obligated to the rest.  I voted against giving these raises that we cannot afford, including, apparently, a raise for ourselves.”

     Rep. Hube of Londonderry explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     The median income for a state employee is roughly $50,000.00 about equal to the Vermont median family income.  To ask Vermonters to pay for pay increases of just under 4% each of the next two years is unfair and unreasonable.”

Bill Amended, Read Third Time and Passed

H. 711

House bill, entitled

An act relating to agricultural, forestry and horticultural education;

Was taken up and pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Barnard of Richmond moved to amend the bill as follows:

First:  In Sec. 3, subsection (a), by striking the words “secondary schools and regional technical centers” and inserting in lieu thereof the following: “secondary schools, regional technical centers, and the community high school of Vermont

Second:  In Sec. 3, subsection (b), in the first sentence, after the words “to the house and senate committees on agriculture and on education” by adding the following: “, the house committee on institutions and corrections, and the senate committee on economic development, housing and general affairs

Third:  In Sec. 3, subsection (b), subdivisions (1), (2), and (3), by striking the words “secondary schools and regional technical centers” wherever they appear and inserting in lieu thereof the following: “secondary schools, regional technical centers, and the community high school of Vermont

Fourth:  In Sec. 3, subsection (d), subdivision (2), after the word “directors” by adding the words “and administrators of the community high school of Vermont

Which was agreed to. 

Thereupon, the bill was read the third time and passed.

Consideration Resumed; Bill Amended;

Read the Third Time and Passed

     H. 685

Consideration resumed on House bill, entitled

An act relating to enforcement of environmental laws;

Thereupon, the amendment offered by Rep. Deen of Westminster was agreed to and the bill was read a third time

Pending the question, Shall the bill pass?  Rep. Howrigan of Fairfield demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.  The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill pass? was decided in the affirmative.  Yeas, 127.  Nays, 6.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Adams of Hartland

Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Barnard of Richmond

Bissonnette of Winooski

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Botzow of Pownal

Branagan of Georgia

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Canfield of Fair Haven

Cheney of Norwich

Clark of Vergennes

Clarkson of Woodstock

Clerkin of Hartford

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Copeland-Hanzas

of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Courcelle of Rutland City

Crawford of Burke

Davis of Washington

Deen of Westminster

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Flory of Pittsford

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Godin of Milton

Grenier of St. Johnsbury

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Howard of Rutland City

Hube of Londonderry

Hunt of Essex

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Kilmartin of Newport City

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Krawczyk of Bennington

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

Larson of Burlington

Lawrence of Lyndon

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lewis of Derby

Lippert of Hinesburg

Livingston of Manchester

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Malcolm of Pawlet

Manwaring of Wilmington

Marcotte of Coventry

Marek of Newfane

Martin, C. of Springfield

Masland of Thetford

McAllister of Highgate

McCormack of Rutland City

McCullough of Williston

McDonald of Berlin

McFaun of Barre Town

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Monti of Barre City

Mook of Bennington

Moran of Wardsboro

Morley of Barton

Morrissey of Bennington

Mrowicki of Putney

Myers of Essex

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

O'Donnell of Vernon

Ojibway of Hartford

Orr of Charlotte

Oxholm of Vergennes

Partridge of Windham

Pearson of Burlington

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Spengler of Colchester

Stevens of Shoreham

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Valliere of Barre City

Westman of Cambridge

Weston of Burlington

Wheeler of Derby

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those who voted in the negative are:


Allard of St. Albans Town

Baker of West Rutland

Helm of Castleton

Howrigan of Fairfield

Komline of Dorset

Turner of Milton


Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:


Ainsworth of Royalton

Aswad of Burlington

Brennan of Colchester

Chen of Mendon

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Grad of Moretown

Hosford of Waitsfield

Jerman of Essex

Johnson of Canaan

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Koch of Barre Town

LaVoie of Swanton

Martin of Wolcott

McNeil of Rutland Town

Otterman of Topsham


     Rep. Klein of East Montpelier explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     I vote yes for H. 685.  I am a strong supporter of environmental enforcement, however, I must express my disappointment with the amended portion of the bill.”

     Rep. Howrigan of Fairfield explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     I explain my vote for the following reason.  The penalty to the towns for environmental enforcement assessment to the natural resources agency are excessive and beyond reasonable budgets of all.”

Rules Suspended; Bill Amended; Read the Third Time and Passed

H. 891

On motion of Rep. Adams of Hartland, the rules were suspended and House bill, entitled

     An act relating to making appropriations for the support of government.

 

Was placed on all remaining stages of passage. 

Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Donahue of Northfield moved to amend the bill as follows:

     In Sec. 6.008 by striking that section in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

Sec. 6.008.  22 V.S.A. § 903(c) is amended to read:

(c)(1)  The commissioner shall contract enter into a grant agreement with the Vermont information technology leaders (VITL), a broad‑based health information technology advisory group that includes providers, payers, employers, patients, health care purchasers, information technology vendors, and other business leaders, to develop the health information technology plan, including applicable standards, protocols, and pilot programs.  In carrying out their responsibilities under this section, members of VITL shall be subject to conflict of interest policies established by the commissioner to ensure that deliberations and decisions are fair and equitable.

(2)  A majority of the VITL board shall comprise state agency representatives and consumers and employers who purchase health care.  Current members of the VITL board who do not fall into one of these categories shall be replaced upon expiration of their current term with new members who are state agency representatives or consumers or employers who purchase health care until a majority of the board comprises such persons.  Upon attaining a majority of state agency representatives and consumers and employers who purchase health care on the board, the quorum requirement for any meeting at which the annual budget and workplan, the state health Information technology plan, or a report to the legislature is adopted shall be a majority of the board members who are state agency representatives and consumers and employers who purchase health care present and voting.  These board composition and quorum requirements shall be reflected in the VITL bylaws.

(2)(3)  VITL shall be designated in the plan to operate the exclusive statewide health information exchange network for this state, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (g) of this section requiring the recommendation of the commissioner and the approval of the general assembly before the plan can take effect. Nothing in this section shall impede local community providers from the exchange of electronic medical data.

Which was disagreed to. 

Pending the third reading of the bill, Rep. Donahue of Northfield moved to amend the bill as follows:

     In Sec. 6.021, by adding a subsection (i) to 2 V.S.A. § 962 as follows:

(i)  Any primary care practitioner receiving an electronic health information system, practice management system, or both pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) of this section shall maximize usage of such system in accordance with the guidelines developed by VITL.  A practitioner who is determined by VITL to be using the system to less than its full capacity shall be provided with an opportunity for additional instruction as needed to enable full usage of the system.  If a practitioner is unwilling or unable to utilize the system to its full capacity, such practitioner shall refund to VITL the fair market value of the system.

Which was agreed to. 

Thereupon the bill was read a third time and passed.

Bills Messaged to Senate Forthwith

On motion of Rep. Adams of Hartland, the rules were suspended and the following bills were ordered messaged to the Senate forthwith:

H. 685

House bill, entitled

An act relating to enforcement of environmental laws;

H. 711

House bill, entitled

An act relating to agricultural, forestry and horticultural education;

H. 887

House bill, entitled

An act relating to health care reform;

H. 890

House bill, entitled

An act relating to compensation for certain state employees;

H. 891

House bill, entitled

An act relating to making appropriations for the support of government;

S. 280

Senate bill, entitled

An act relating to prosthetic parity;

Adjournment

At nine o’clock and forty minutes in the afternoon, on motion of Rep. Komline of Dorset, the House adjourned until tomorrow at nine o’clock and thirty minutes in the forenoon.

 

 

 



Published by:

The Vermont General Assembly
115 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont


www.leg.state.vt.us