Free Georgia Affidavit of Truth Template - DOC

Document Sample
Free Georgia Affidavit of Truth Template - DOC Powered By Docstoc
					       Journal of the House
                              ________________
                          WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
  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 Michael Obuchowski of
Rockingham.
                            Joint Resolutions Adopted
   Joint resolutions of the following titles were severally taken up and adopted
on the part of the House;
                                 J. R. H. 258
   Joint resolution designating September 24 as juvenile diabetes awareness
day.
                                 J. R. H. 259
   Joint resolution designating March 16, 2001 as Liberty Day.
                                 J. R. H. 260
  Joint resolution congratulating Richard Goodro on his distinguished
municipal public service career in the town of Middlebury.
                                 J. R. H. 261
   Joint resolution in memory of Giovanni “John” Zampieri.
                                 J. R. H. 262
  Joint resolution in memory of former Commissioner of Fish and Game,
Edward F. Kehoe.
                           Action on Bill Postponed
                                    H. 540
   House bill, entitled
   An act relating to holidays and payment of unemployment compensation
benefits;

                                     1333
                           JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                            1334
   Was taken up and pending the question, Shall the House concur with the
Senate proposal of amendment? on motion of Rep. Milkey of Brattleboro,
action on the bill was postponed until the next legislative day.
              Senate Proposal of Amendment Concurred in;
       Rules Suspended; Action Messaged to Senate Forthwith and
                  Bill Delivered to Governor Forthwith
                                  H. 564
   The Senate proposes to the House to amend House bill, entitled
   An act relating to truth in sentencing;
   First: By adding a new section to be numbered Sec. 3. to read as follows:
   Sec. 3. 13 V.S.A. §7031(a) is amended to read:
§7031. Form of sentences; maximum and minimum terms
   (a) When a respondent is sentenced to any term of imprisonment, other than
for life, the court imposing the sentence shall not fix the term of imprisonment,
unless such term is definitely fixed by statute, but shall establish a maximum
and may establish a minimum term for which such respondent may be held in
imprisonment. The maximum term shall not be more than the longest term
fixed by law for the offense of which the respondent is convicted and the
minimum term shall be not less than the shortest term fixed by law for such
offense. If the court suspends a portion of said sentence the unsuspended
portion of such sentence shall be the minimum term of sentence solely for the
purpose of any reductions of term for good behavior as provided for in section
811 of Title 28.
                                      ***
   Second: By striking out Sec. 2 in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof
the following:
   Sec. 2. APPLICABILITY
   The provisions of Sec. 1 shall apply to persons who commit offenses on or
after the effective date of this act.
   Which proposal of amendment was considered and concurred in.
    On motion of Rep. Freed of Dorset, the rules were suspended and action
on the bill was ordered messaged to the Senate forthwith and the bill delivered
to the Governor forthwith.
1335                       WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
       Senate Proposal of Amendment Concurred in; Action Messaged
        to Senate Forthwith and Bill Delivered to Governor Forthwith
                                      H. 683
   The Senate proposes to the House to amend House bill, entitled
   An act relating to Vermont Economic Development Authority;
   After the end of Sec. 1, by adding a new Sec. 1a to read as follows:
Sec. 1a. 10 V.S.A. § 217(d) is added to read:
   (d) At such time as the authority has exhausted all rights and remedies to
enforce the terms of a financing document or mortgage serving as security for
a loan, the identity of the borrower and the outstanding principal balance of the
loan shall become a public record.
   Which proposal of amendment was considered and concurred in.
    On motion of Rep. Freed of Dorset, the rules were suspended and action
on the bill was ordered messaged to the Senate forthwith and the bill delivered
to the Governor forthwith.
         Bill Read Third Time; Proposals of Amendment Agreed to;
                    Consideration Interrupted by Recess
                                      S. 237
   Senate bill, entitled
   An act relating to minors and alcohol
   Was taken up and pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Hingtgen of
Burlington, moved the House propose to the Senate to amend the bill as
follows:
   By adding a new Sec. 2a to read:
Sec. 2a. 7 V.S.A. § 66 is added to read:
§ 66. SHIPPING PERMIT; VINOUS BEVERAGES; DELIVERY
      REQUIREMENTS
   (a) A holder of a second class license, fourth class license or a license to
manufacture or rectify vinous beverages may apply annually to the department
for a shipping permit by filing an application in a form determined by the
department accompanied by an annual fee of $200.00. Granting of the
shipping permit shall authorize the license holder to deliver up to one case of
no more than 12 bottles of vinous beverages per shipment, or effect delivery of
the same amount of vinous beverages by a common carrier that primarily
                           JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                               1336
delivers freight or express as defined in 5 V.S.A. §1820, to an individual
purchaser for personal consumption. The vinous beverages shall be delivered
pursuant to an invoice that includes the name of the licensee and the name and
address of the purchaser. The vinous beverages shall be delivered only to the
address on the invoice and only to an individual who is age 21 or over. The
licensee shall file a copy of the invoice with the department prior to shipping
and shall retain a copy of the invoice for two years.
   (b) A licensed manufacturer or rectifier holding a shipping permit shall pay
directly to the commissioner of taxes the wholesale tax on vinous beverages
shipped pursuant to this section.
   (c) A holder of a shipping permit under this section shal1 not deliver or
have delivered any vinous beverages to any person under the age of 21.
   (d) A common carrier shall not engage in the business of delivering vinous
beverages until it has complied with the provisions of §239(a) and (b) of Title
7 and its compliance has been certified by the department of liquor control, and
no employee of such a common carrier shall deliver vinous beverages until that
employee completes the training required by §239(c).
   (e) For non-compliance with subsections (b) or (d) of this section, the board
of liquor control shall have the power to suspend or revoke and certification or
permit issued under this section.
   Which was agreed to.
  Pending third reading of the bill, Reps. Palmer of Pownal, O’Donnell of
Vernon and Rusten of Halifax, moved the House to propose to the Senate to
amend the bill as follows:
   By striking Sec. 1 in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
Sec. 1. 7 V.S.A. § 658 is amended to read:
§ 658. SALE OR FURNISHING TO MINORS; ENABLING
       CONSUMPTION BY MINORS; MINORS CAUSING DEATH OR
       SERIOUS BODILY INJURY
   (a) A No person, licensee or otherwise, shall not:
     (1) sell or furnish malt or vinous beverages or spirituous liquors to a
person under the age of 21; or
       (2) knowingly enable the consumption of malt or vinous beverages or
spirituous liquors by a person under the age of 21.
                                       ***
1337                      WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
   (c) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not
less than $500.00 nor more than $2,000.00 $1,000.00 or imprisoned not more
than two years one year, or both. However, an employee of a licensee, who in
the course of employment violates subdivision (a)(1) of this section:
      (1) during a compliance check conducted by a law enforcement officer,
as defined in 20 V.S.A. §2358, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more
than $100.00 for the first offense, and not more than $500.00 for any
subsequent offense, which shall be brought in the same manner as for a traffic
violation pursuant to chapter 24 of Title 23.
       (2) may plead as an affirmative defense that:
          (A) the purchaser exhibited and the employee carefully viewed
photographic identification that complied with section 602 of this title and
indicated the purchaser to be 21 or older; and
         (B) an ordinary prudent person would believe the purchaser to be of
legal age to make the purchase; and
          (C) the sale was made in good faith based upon the reasonable belief
that the purchaser was of legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages.
                                        ***
Sec. 1a. 4 V.S.A. § 1102 (b) is amended to read:
   (b) The bureau shall have jurisdiction of the following matters:
                                      ***
      (7) violations under 7 V.S.A. § 658(c)(1), relating to the prohibition
against sale or furnishing alcohol to minors by an employee of a licensee
pursuant to a compliance check.
    Pending the question, Shall the House propose to the Senate to amend the
bill as recommended by Reps. Palmer of Pownal, O’Donnell of Vernon and
Rusten of Halifax? Reps. Vinton of Colchester and Edwards of Swanton,
moved amend the recommendation of proposal of amendment offered by Reps.
Palmer of Pownal, et al, as follows:
   In Sec. 1, in § 658(c), by striking subdivision (1) and inserting a new
subdivision (1) to read:
   (1) during a compliance check conducted by a law enforcement officer as
defined in 20 V.S.A. § 2358, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more
than $100.00 for the first offense, not less than $100.00 nor more than $500.00
for a second offense, and not less than $500.00 nor more than $2,000.00 or
                           JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                              1338
imprisioned not more than two years, or both, for any third or subsequent
offense within a three year period.
   Which was agreed to.
  Thereupon, the recommendation of proposal of amendment offered by
Reps. Palmer of Pownal, et al, as amended, was agreed to
  Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Marron of Stowe and Nitka of
Ludlow, moved the House propose to the Senate to amend the bill as follows:
   In Sec. 2 §(a), after the word “minors” by adding the following:
except in the regular performance of duties as an employee of a licensee
licensed to sell alcohol liquor,
   Which was agreed to.
    Pending third reading of the bill, Reps. Barbieri of Wallingford and
Corren of Burlington, moved the House propose to the Senate to amend the
bill as follows:
   By adding a new Sec. 8 to read as follows:
Sec. 8 7 V.S.A. 237(c) is amended to read:
   (c) It shall be the responsibility of each licensee to Each licensee shall
ensure that every employee who is involved in the sale or serving of alcohol
beverages completes a training program approved by the department of liquor
control before the employee begins serving or selling alcoholic beverages and
at least once every 24 months thereafter. A licensee may comply with this
requirement by conducting its own training program on its premises, using
information and materials furnished by the department of liquor control. A
licensee shall submit to the board annually a signed affidavit certifying that
each of the licensee’s employees who serves or sells alcoholic beverages has
completed an approved training program prior to serving or selling alcohol,
and that other employees have completed additional training required by this
subsection. A licensee who fails to train an employee as required by this
subsection or who files a false affidavit certifying training shall be subject to a
suspension of no less than one day of the license issued under this title.
   This section shall take effect July 1, 2000.
   Pending the question, Shall the House recommendation of proposal of
amendment be amended as recommended by Reps. Barbieri of Wallingford
and Corren of Burlington?
1339                      WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000


                                     Recess
   At twelve o’clock and ten minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker declared a
recess until one o’clock and fifteen minutes in the afternoon
                                    Afternoon.
  At one o’clock and twenty minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker called the
House to order.
      Consideration Resumed; Proposals of Amendment Agreed to;
   Bill Read Third time; Passed and Messaged to the Senate Forthwith
                                     S. 237
   Consideration resumed on Senate bill, entitled
   An act relating to minors and alcohol
   The recurring question, Shall the House recommendation of proposal of
amendment be amended as recommended by Reps. Barbieri of Wallingford
and Corren of Burlington? was agreed to.
  Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Nuovo of Middlebury moved the
House to propose to the Senate to amend the bill as follows:
   First: Sec. 1, in § 658(c), by striking subdivision (1) and by inserting a new
subdivision (1) to read:
      (1) during a compliance check conducted by a law enforcement officer
as defined in 20 V.S.A. § 2358, shall be subject to:
         (A) a civil penalty of not more than $100.00 for the first violation;
         (B) a civil penalty of not less than $100.00 nor more than $500.00 for
a second violation; and
        (C) a criminal penalty of not less than $500.00 nor more than
$2,000.00 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both, for any third or
subsequent violation or offense within a three year period.
  Second: In Sec. 1a, in § 1102(b), by striking subdivision (7) and inserting a
new subdivision (7) to read:
      (7) violations under 7 V.S.A. § 658(c)(1), relating to the first and second
violation of the prohibition against sale or furnishing alcohol to minors by an
employee of a license pursuant to a compliance check.
   Which was agreed to.
                            JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                                1340
  Pending third reading of the bill, Rep Stevens of Newbury, moved the
House propose to the Senate to amend the bill as follows:
   By adding a new Sec.9 to read as follows:
Sec. 9. 7 V.S.A. § 239(b) is amended to read:
   (b) Every first and second class licensee and every holder of a
manufacturer's license shall complete the department of liquor control licensee
enforcement seminar at least once every three two years. A corporation,
partnership, or association shall designate a director, partner, or manager who
shall comply with the terms of this subsection. No first or second class license
or manufacturer's license shall be renewed unless the records of the department
of liquor control show that the licensee has complied with the terms of this
subsection.
   Which was disagreed to.
   Thereupon the bill was read the third time.
  Pending the question, Shall the bill pass? Rep. Stevens of Newbury
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, 136. Nays, 3.
   Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alfano of Calais            Deuel of West Rutland          Howrigan of Fairfield
Allard of St. Albans Town   Dominick of Starksboro         Hube of Londonderry
Anderson of Woodstock       Doyle of Richmond              Hudson of Lyndon
Angell of Randolph          Edwards of Swanton             Hummel of Underhill
Aswad of Burlington         Emmons of Springfield          Johnson of Canaan
Atkins of Winooski          Flaherty of South Burlington   Jordan of Middlesex
Baker of West Rutland       Flory of Pittsford             Kainen of Hartford
Barbieri of Wallingford     Follett of Springfield         Kehler of Pomfret
Barney of Highgate          Fox of Essex                   Kinsey of Craftsbury
Blanchard of Essex          Freed of Dorset                Kitzmiller of Montpelier
Brooks of Montpelier        Fyfe of Newport City           Koch of Barre Town
Brown of Walden             Gervais of Enosburg            Krasnow of Charlotte
Buckland of Newport Town    Ginevan of Middlebury          Krawczyk of Bennington
Carmolli of Rutland City    Gray of Barre Town             Kreitzer of Rutland City
Clark of St. Johnsbury      Gretkowski of Burlington       LaBarge of Grand Isle
Cleland of Northfield       Hathaway of Barton             Lafayette of Burlington
Colvin of Bennington        Heath of Westford              Larocque of Barnet
Costello of Brattleboro     Helm of Castleton              Larrabee of Danville
Crawford of Burke           Hingtgen of Burlington         Lehman of Hartford
Cross of Winooski           Hoag of Woodford               Levin of Hartland
Dakin of Colchester         Holmes of Bethel               Lippert of Hinesburg
Darrow of Dummerston        Hooker of Rutland City         Little of Shelburne
DePoy of Rutland            Houston of Ferrisburgh         Livingston of Manchester
1341                          WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
Mackinnon of Sharon            Partridge of Windham          Suchmann of Chester
Mallary of Brookfield          Peaslee of Guildhall          Sullivan of Burlington
Marron of Stowe                Pembroke of Bennington        Sweaney of Windsor
Maslack of Poultney            Perry of Richford             Sweetser of Essex
Masland of Thetford            Pike of Mendon                Symington of Jericho
Mazur of South Burlington      Poirier of Barre City         Towne of Berlin
Mazzariello of Rutland City    Postman of Brownington        Tracy of Burlington
McNamara of Burlington         Pugh of South Burlington      Valsangiacomo of Barre City
Metzger of Milton              Quaid of Williston            Vincent of Waterbury
Milkey of Brattleboro          Richardson of Weathersfield   Vinton of Colchester
Miller of Shaftsbury           Rivero of Milton              Voyer of Morristown
Milne of Washington            Robb of Swanton               Waite of Pawlet
Molloy of Arlington            Rogers of Castleton           Weiss of Northfield
Morrissey of Bennington        Rusten of Halifax             Westman of Cambridge
Mullin of Rutland Town         Schaefer of Colchester        Wheeler of Burlington
Neiman of Georgia              Schiavone of Shelburne        Willett of St. Albans City
Nitka of Ludlow                Seibert of Norwich            Winters of Williamstown
Nuovo of Middlebury            Severance of Colchester       Wisell of Bristol
O'Donnell of Vernon            Sheltra of Derby              Wood of Brandon
Osman of Plainfield            Sherman of St. Johnsbury      Woodward of Johnson
Palmer of Pownal               Smith of Sudbury              Zuckerman of Burlington
Paquin of Fairfax              Steele of Waterbury
Parizo of Essex                Stevens of Newbury
   Those who voted in the negative are:
Bouricius of Burlington        Corren of Burlington          Randall of Bradford
   Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:
Bourdeau of Hyde Park          Hyde of Fayston               Starr of Troy
Bristol of Brattleboro         Keenan of St. Albans City     Young of Orwell
Darrow of Newfane              McGrath of Ferrisburgh
Deen of Westminster            Smith of New Haven

   Rep. Stevens of Newbury, explained his vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
   Several times today our store clerks have been compared to guards who fell
asleep in the armed services. During the Civil War a soldier from Groton,
Vermont, fell asleep while on guard duty. He was sentenced to death.
President Lincoln pardoned that soldier, and now U.S. Route 302 from Barre to
Newbury is named the Sleeping Sentinel Highway. Today we have taken
action to pardon our store clerks who make a mistake during a sting
operation.”
  On motion of Rep. Freed of Dorset, the rules were suspended and the bill
was ordered messaged to the Senate forthwith.
                          JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                              1342
                          Message from the Senate
  A message was received from the Senate by Mr. Marshall, its Assistant
Secretary, as follows:
Mr. Speaker:
   I am directed to inform the House that the Senate has considered House
proposal of amendment to Senate bill of the following title:
   S. 283. An act relating to the use of heart defibrillator machines with
appropriate training..
  And has concurred therein.
    The Senate has considered a bill originating in the House of the following
title:
  H. 192. An act relating to toxic materials and indoor air quality in Vermont
public schools.
   And has passed the same in concurrence with proposals of amendment in
the adoption of which the concurrence of the House is requested.
  The Senate has on its part adopted a joint resolution of the following title:
  J.R.S. 98.      Joint resolution urging the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the
U.S. congress reconsider federal policies that restrict the cultivation and
marketing of industrial hemp and related products.
  In the adoption of which the concurrence of the House is requested.
   The Senate has considered House proposal of amendment to Senate bill
entitled:
  S. 113. An act relating to electric cooperatives.
  And has refused to concur therein and asks for a Committee of Conference
upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses;
   The President has appointed as members of such Committee on the part of
the Senate:
        Senator MacDonald
        Senator Rivers
        Senator Doyle
    The Governor has informed the Senate that on the second day of May,
2000, he approved and signed bills originating in the Senate of the following
titles:
1343                       WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
   S. 304. An act relating to the class 2 town highway rehabilitation program.
   S. 325. An act relating to an appropriation to the legislature.
                           Message from Governor
  A message was received from His Excellency, the Governor, by Ms. Kate
O’Connor, Secretary of Civil and Military Affairs, as follows:
   Mr. Speaker:
   I am directed by the Governor to inform the House that on the third day of
May, 2000, he approved and signed bills originating in the House of the
following titles:
   H. 185 An act relating to workers’ compensation vocational
          rehabilitation benefits
   H. 748 An act relating to gray marketed cigarettes
        Proposals of Amendment Agreed to; Read Third Time ****
                                      S. 300
   Senate bill, entitled
   An act relating to fair pricing of prescription drugs
  Was taken up and pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Mullin of Rutland
Town, moved the House propose to the Senate to amend the bill as follows:
   First: In Sec. 11, in § 1994(a), by striking subdivision (3) and inserting in
lieu thereof the following:
     (3)(A) In the case of recipients eligible for assistance under subdivision
1993(a)(2)(A) of this title:
             (i) For recipients subject to the provisions of subdivision (2) of
this section, the coinsurance payment shall be 50 percent of the cost of the drug
until such time during each coverage period as the recipient’s unreimbursed
household expenditures for drugs covered under this chapter exceed the
amount provided for in subsection (e) of this section, after which time any such
coinsurance shall be the same coinsurance requirements that exist under the
pharmaceutical benefits component of the Vermont health access plan under
Act No. 14, Sec. 14(a)(6) of the Acts and Resolves of the 1995 Session of the
general assembly, as amended; and
             (ii) For recipients not subject to the provisions of subdivision (2)
of this section, the coinsurance payment shall be 100 percent of the cost of the
drug, or the coinsurance payment required by the recipient’s private or public
prescription drug benefit plan until such time during each coverage period as
                           JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                             1344
the recipient’s unreimbursed household expenditures for drugs covered under
this chapter exceed the amount provided for in subsection (e) of this section,
after which time any such coinsurance shall be 50 percent of the cost of the
drug, or 50 percent of any applicable coinsurance payment required by the
recipient’s private or public prescription drug benefit plan.
      (B)(i) In the case of recipients eligible for assistance under subdivision
1993(a)(2)(B) of this title with household income less than or equal to 225
percent of the federal poverty level, the coinsurance payment shall be 100
percent of the cost of the drug, or the coinsurance payment required by the
recipient’s private or public prescription drug benefit plan, as applicable, until
such time during each coverage period as the recipient’s unreimbursed
household expenditures for drugs covered under this chapter exceed the
amount provided for in subsection (e) of this section, after which time any such
coinsurance shall be the same coinsurance requirements that exist under the
pharmaceutical benefits component of the Vermont health access plan under
Act No. 14, Sec. 14(a)(6) of the Acts and Resolves of the 1995 Session of the
general assembly, as amended; and
          (ii) In the case of recipients eligible for assistance under subdivision
1993(a)(2)(B) of this title with household income greater than 225 percent of
the federal poverty level and less than or equal to 300 percent of the federal
poverty level, the coinsurance payment shall be 100 percent of the cost of the
drug, or the coinsurance payment required by the recipient’s private or public
prescription drug benefit plan, as applicable, until such time during each
coverage period as the recipient’s unreimbursed household expenditures for
drugs covered under this chapter exceed the amount provided for in subsection
(e) of this section, after which time any such coinsurance shall be 50 percent of
the cost of the drug, or 50 percent of any applicable coinsurance payment
required by the recipient’s private or public prescription drug benefit plan.
   Second: In Sec. 12, in § 1994(e)(1), by striking the second sentence and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: “During such six-month period and
during each subsequent coverage period beginning on January 1 and ending on
December 31 of each year, no co-payment shall be required for the remainder
of such period in excess of the co-payment requirements provided for in
subdivision 1994(a)(3) of this title by any eligible recipient whose
unreimbursed household expenditures for drugs covered under this chapter,
when aggregated with the unreimbursed household expenditures for covered
drugs of the other members of the household exceed:
         (A) ten (10) percent of the individual’s household income for
individuals with household income less than or equal to 225 percent of the
federal poverty line; or
1345                       WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
         (B) eleven (11) percent of the individual’s household income for
individuals with household income greater than 225 percent of the federal
poverty line and less than or equal to 300 percent of the federal poverty line.”
   Third: In Sec. 15, by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof the
following:
   (a) The commissioner of social welfare shall implement the provisions of
Secs. 8 through 12 of this act (catastrophic prescription drug expenses
program) on or before July 1, 2000.
   Fourth: In Sec. 15(b), by striking subdivision (2) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
      (2) The amount of $2,320,354.00 is appropriated from the general fund
to the department of social welfare in fiscal year 2001 as the first priority of
general fund fiscal year 2001 one-time appropriations pursuant to Sec. 253 of
H.842 of the 2000 session of the general assembly to support catastrophic
prescription drug expense assistance to individuals eligible under 33 V.S.A. §
1993(a)(2).
    Pending the question, Shall the House propose to the Senate to amend the
bill as recommended by Rep. Mullin of Rutland Town? Rep. Mullin of
Rutland Town 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 propose to the Senate to amend the bill as
recommended by Rep. Mullin of Rutland Town? was decided in the negative.
Yeas, 62. Nays, 78.
   Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Angell of Randolph          Holmes of Bethel            Milne of Washington
Baker of West Rutland       Houston of Ferrisburgh      Morrissey of Bennington
Barney of Highgate          Hube of Londonderry         Mullin of Rutland Town
Bouricius of Burlington     Hudson of Lyndon            Neiman of Georgia
Brown of Walden             Johnson of Canaan           O'Donnell of Vernon
Buckland of Newport Town    Kainen of Hartford          Palmer of Pownal
Clark of St. Johnsbury      Kinsey of Craftsbury        Peaslee of Guildhall
Cleland of Northfield       Koch of Barre Town          Pike of Mendon
Crawford of Burke           LaBarge of Grand Isle       Quaid of Williston
DePoy of Rutland            Larocque of Barnet          Randall of Bradford
Deuel of West Rutland       Larrabee of Danville        Richardson of Weathersfield
Dominick of Starksboro      Lehman of Hartford          Robb of Swanton
Flory of Pittsford          Livingston of Manchester    Rogers of Castleton
Follett of Springfield      Mallary of Brookfield       Schaefer of Colchester
Freed of Dorset             Marron of Stowe             Schiavone of Shelburne
Ginevan of Middlebury       Maslack of Poultney         Sheltra of Derby
Hathaway of Barton          Mazur of South Burlington   Sherman of St. Johnsbury
Helm of Castleton           Metzger of Milton           Smith of New Haven
                               JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                               1346
Steele of Waterbury            Voyer of Morristown           Winters of Williamstown
Suchmann of Chester            Westman of Cambridge          Wood of Brandon
Sweetser of Essex              Willett of St. Albans City
   Those who voted in the negative are:
Alfano of Calais               Hoag of Woodford              Partridge of Windham
Allard of St. Albans Town      Hooker of Rutland City        Pembroke of Bennington
Anderson of Woodstock          Howrigan of Fairfield         Perry of Richford
Aswad of Burlington            Hummel of Underhill           Poirier of Barre City
Atkins of Winooski             Jordan of Middlesex           Postman of Brownington
Barbieri of Wallingford        Kehler of Pomfret             Pugh of South Burlington
Blanchard of Essex             Kitzmiller of Montpelier      Rivero of Milton
Brooks of Montpelier           Krasnow of Charlotte          Rusten of Halifax
Carmolli of Rutland City       Krawczyk of Bennington        Seibert of Norwich
Colvin of Bennington           Kreitzer of Rutland City      Severance of Colchester
Corren of Burlington           Lafayette of Burlington       Smith of Sudbury
Costello of Brattleboro        Levin of Hartland             Stevens of Newbury
Cross of Winooski              Lippert of Hinesburg          Sullivan of Burlington
Dakin of Colchester            Little of Shelburne           Sweaney of Windsor
Darrow of Dummerston           Mackinnon of Sharon           Symington of Jericho
Doyle of Richmond              Masland of Thetford           Towne of Berlin
Edwards of Swanton             Mazzariello of Rutland City   Tracy of Burlington
Emmons of Springfield          McNamara of Burlington        Valsangiacomo of Barre City
Flaherty of South Burlington   Milkey of Brattleboro         Vincent of Waterbury
Fox of Essex                   Miller of Shaftsbury          Vinton of Colchester
Fyfe of Newport City           Molloy of Arlington           Waite of Pawlet
Gervais of Enosburg            Nitka of Ludlow               Weiss of Northfield
Gray of Barre Town             Nuovo of Middlebury           Wheeler of Burlington
Gretkowski of Burlington       Osman of Plainfield           Wisell of Bristol
Heath of Westford              Paquin of Fairfax             Woodward of Johnson
Hingtgen of Burlington         Parizo of Essex               Zuckerman of Burlington
   Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:
Bourdeau of Hyde Park          Deen of Westminster           McGrath of Ferrisburgh
Bristol of Brattleboro         Hyde of Fayston               Starr of Troy
Darrow of Newfane              Keenan of St. Albans City     Young of Orwell
   Rep. Milne of Washington, explained her vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
   I am a strong supporter of lowering prescription drugs for all Vermonters.
As a member of the Health Oversight Committee, this was a goal we
established at the very beginning.”
   Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Weiss of Northfield, moved to
further propose to the Senate to amend the bill as follows:
   First: In Sec. 6, by striking subsection (c) and inserting in lieu thereof the
following:
1347                      WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
   (c) Within 30 days of passage of this act, the department of health shall
award a contract to implement the provisions of this section, and shall award to
the contractor such funds as are appropriated by the general assembly to carry
out the purpose of this section.
   Second: In Sec. 6(e) by striking the words “Bi-State Primary Care
Association” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “commissioner of health
and its contractor”
   Third: In Sec. 7 after the word “contract” by striking the words “with the
Bi-State Primary Care Association”
   Which was agreed to.
   Pending third reading of the bill, Reps. Deuel of West Rutland,
Valsangiacomo of Barre City, Freed of Dorset, Gervais of Enosburg,
Marron of Stowe, O’Donnell of Vernon, Peaslee of Guildhall and Vincent
of Waterbury, moved to further propose to the Senate to amend the bill as
follows:
   By adding a new Sec. 18 to read:
Sec. 18. 31 V.S.A. §654a is added to read:
§654a. MULTI-STATE LOTTERY
   (a) The commission shall negotiate and contract with a multi-state lottery
corporation to offer and provide the game in this state. The commission shall
adopt rules to govern the establishment and operation of the multi-state game.
   (b) In each fiscal year the first $2.000.000.00 of revenues received from the
operation of a multi-state after payment of prizes and costs of administration.
shall be deposited in the general fund. and the remainder be deposited in the
education fund.
And be renumbering the remaining section to be numerically correct
   Rep. Koch of Barre City raised a Point of Order that the proposed
amendment was not germane to the House proposal of amendment, which
Point of Order the Speaker ruled well taken and therefore the amendment was
ruled out of order.
   Pending third reading of the bill, Reps. Little of Shelburne, Colvin of
Bennington, Dakin of Colchester, Houston of Ferrisburg, Hube of
Londonderry, Mazur of South Burlington and Young of Orwell, moved to
further propose to the Senate to amend the bill as follows:
   By adding a new section to read:
                          JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                             1348
Sec. 16a. STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY CONCERNING
          STATE REGULATION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES
   The State of Vermont should pursue its goal of lowering prescription drug
costs for all Vermonters by means other than the regulation of prescription
drug prices for the following reasons:
      (1) The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution does not
permit a state to regulate directly the prices manufacturers charge for
prescription drugs, since virtually all of these sales involve commercial
transactions that take place outside of the state.
       (2) The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution may limit
the ability of a state to regulate retail prices of prescription drugs if such
regulation places an undue burden on interstate commerce, and legislation
establishing a price regulation mechanism would likely involve the state in
litigation with an uncertain outcome.
       (3) Even if Vermont could regulate constitutionally Vermont retail sales
of prescription drugs, such regulation would most likely be ineffective in
addressing the fundamental problems concerning manufacturer prices, since
manufacturers would be under no obligation to sell to Vermont wholesale and
retail pharmacies at a price that complies with the prices established by
Vermont regulators.
      (4) Price regulation relating to Vermont retail prescription drug sales
could result in severe harm to Vermont retail pharmacies.
     (5) Price regulation relating to Vermont retail prescription drug sales
may reduce consumers’ access to medically necessary medicines.
      (6) Price regulation relating to Vermont wholesale prescription drug
sales would apply only to Vermont’s one drug wholesaler, who might relocate
to another state in order to remain commercially viable, thereby resulting in the
loss of about 150 jobs in Vermont.
      (7) The fundamental problems concerning manufacturer prices for
prescription drugs are national problems that require a national solution.
       Pending the question, Shall the House further propose to the Senate to
amend the bill as recommended by Reps. Little of Shelburne, et al? Rep.
Mullin of Rutland Town 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 further propose to the Senate to amend the
bill as recommended by Reps. Little of Shelburne, et al? was decided in the
affirmative. Yeas, 101. Nays, 39.
1349                           WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
   Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allard of St. Albans Town       Hoag of Woodford              Perry of Richford
Anderson of Woodstock           Holmes of Bethel              Pike of Mendon
Angell of Randolph              Howrigan of Fairfield         Quaid of Williston
Aswad of Burlington             Hube of Londonderry           Randall of Bradford
Atkins of Winooski              Hudson of Lyndon              Richardson of Weathersfield
Baker of West Rutland           Johnson of Canaan             Rivero of Milton
Barbieri of Wallingford         Kainen of Hartford            Robb of Swanton
Barney of Highgate              Kinsey of Craftsbury          Rogers of Castleton
Blanchard of Essex              Koch of Barre Town            Rusten of Halifax
Brown of Walden                 Krawczyk of Bennington        Schaefer of Colchester
Buckland of Newport Town        Kreitzer of Rutland City      Schiavone of Shelburne
Carmolli of Rutland City        Larocque of Barnet            Severance of Colchester
Clark of St. Johnsbury          Larrabee of Danville          Sheltra of Derby
Cleland of Northfield           Lehman of Hartford            Sherman of St. Johnsbury
Colvin of Bennington            Little of Shelburne           Smith of New Haven
Crawford of Burke               Livingston of Manchester      Steele of Waterbury
Cross of Winooski               Mallary of Brookfield         Stevens of Newbury
Dakin of Colchester             Marron of Stowe               Suchmann of Chester
DePoy of Rutland                Maslack of Poultney           Sweaney of Windsor
Deuel of West Rutland           Masland of Thetford           Sweetser of Essex
Dominick of Starksboro          Mazur of South Burlington     Symington of Jericho
Edwards of Swanton              Mazzariello of Rutland City   Towne of Berlin
Flaherty of South Burlington    McNamara of Burlington        Valsangiacomo of Barre City
Flory of Pittsford              Metzger of Milton             Vincent of Waterbury
Follett of Springfield          Molloy of Arlington           Vinton of Colchester
Freed of Dorset                 Morrissey of Bennington       Voyer of Morristown
Fyfe of Newport City            Mullin of Rutland Town        Westman of Cambridge
Gervais of Enosburg             Neiman of Georgia             Wheeler of Burlington
Ginevan of Middlebury           Nitka of Ludlow               Willett of St. Albans City
Gray of Barre Town              O'Donnell of Vernon           Winters of Williamstown
Gretkowski of Burlington        Palmer of Pownal              Wisell of Bristol
Hathaway of Barton              Parizo of Essex               Wood of Brandon
Heath of Westford               Peaslee of Guildhall          Young of Orwell
Helm of Castleton               Pembroke of Bennington
   Those who voted in the negative are:
Alfano of Calais                Hummel of Underhill           Nuovo of Middlebury
Bouricius of Burlington         Jordan of Middlesex           Osman of Plainfield
Brooks of Montpelier            Kehler of Pomfret             Paquin of Fairfax
Corren of Burlington            Kitzmiller of Montpelier      Partridge of Windham
Darrow of Newfane               Krasnow of Charlotte          Poirier of Barre City
Darrow of Dummerston            Lafayette of Burlington       Postman of Brownington
Deen of Westminster             Levin of Hartland             Pugh of South Burlington
Doyle of Richmond               Lippert of Hinesburg          Seibert of Norwich
Emmons of Springfield           Mackinnon of Sharon           Smith of Sudbury
Fox of Essex                    Milkey of Brattleboro         Sullivan of Burlington
Hingtgen of Burlington          Miller of Shaftsbury          Tracy of Burlington
Hooker of Rutland City          Milne of Washington           Waite of Pawlet
                           JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                              1350
Weiss of Northfield         Woodward of Johnson         Zuckerman of Burlington
   Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:
Bourdeau of Hyde Park       Houston of Ferrisburgh      LaBarge of Grand Isle
Bristol of Brattleboro      Hyde of Fayston             McGrath of Ferrisburgh
Costello of Brattleboro     Keenan of St. Albans City   Starr of Troy

   Pending third reading of the bill, Reps. Perry of Richford and Weiss of
Northfield, moved to further propose to the Senate to amend the bill as
follows:
   First: In Sec. 6, by striking subdivision (d) and inserting in lieu thereof the
following:
   (d) The contract awarded by the department of health to carry out the
purposes of this section shall provide for the following:
      (1) the development of a plan to create federally qualified health centers
throughout the state to improve access to and reduce the cost of primary health
care services;
      (2) technical assistance to rural health centers and other health care
providers considering or seeking designation as a federally qualified health
center;
      (3) grants, subject to the approval of the commissioner of health, not to
exceed $10,000.00 to rural health centers, health care providers, or community
organizations, matched by the grant recipient at 50 percent of the grant
amount, to support all or a portion of the expenses associated with the
conversion of such centers or the establishment of new federally qualified
health centers; and
      (4) the development of plans to ensure that each federally qualified
health center operating in this state provides access to prescription drugs to
patients of the center at federal supply schedule prices, through contracts with
existing pharmacies in the community, or through a health center dispensary if
a contract with a community pharmacy is not feasible.
  Second: In Sec. 6(e) by striking the words “Bi-State Primary Care
Association” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “commissioner of health”
   Third: In Sec. 6, by adding a new subsection (g) to read:
   (g) The commissioner of health may exercise sole source contracting
authority to carry out the provisions of this section.
   Fourth: By striking Sec. 7 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
1351                      WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
Sec. 7. APPROPRIATIONS; FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH
        CENTERS
   The sum of $277,000.00 is appropriated to the department of health from
the general fund in fiscal year 2001 as a fiscal year 2001 one-time
appropriation pursuant to Sec. 253 of H.842 of the 2000 session of the general
assembly, to support the contract awarded by the department to carry out the
provisions of Sec. 6 of this act. The department of health shall report to the
general assembly on or before January 1, 2001 identifying the funds necessary
to carry out the plan for federally qualified health centers and to carry out the
other purposes of Sec. 6 of this act in fiscal year 2002 and in succeeding years.
   Rep. Pugh of Burlington asked to have the question divided.
   Thereupon, the third instance of proposal of amendment was agreed to.
   Rep. Perry of Richford asked and was granted leave of the House to
withdraw his second proposal of amendment.
   Thereupon, the first and fourth instances of proposal of amendment were
disagreed to on a Division vote. Yeas, 35. Nays, 47.
The bill was then read a third time and passed in concurrence with proposals of
amendment on a Division vote. Yeas, 93. Nays, 3.
Senate Proposal of Amendment Concurred in with an Amendment thereto
    Rules Suspended; Bill Ordered Messaged to the Senate Forthwith
                                     H. 629
   The Senate proposes to the House to amend House bill, entitled
An act relating to containing special education costs while continuing to meet
the needs of all Vermont students;
   By striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the
following:
Sec. 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
   (a) The general assembly finds that:
     (1) School districts are working hard to control special education costs
while continuing to provide appropriate services that meet the needs of all
Vermont students.
      (2) Nevertheless, special education costs are increasing more rapidly
than general education costs and this rate of increase should be moderated to
an extent consistent with meeting the educational needs of students. The
increase in special education costs is due to many complex factors, including
                          JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                            1352
an increase in the percentage of students found eligible for special education
services as well as an increase in the proportion of those special education
students who need very expensive services.
       (3) The blue ribbon commission on special education costs and the
fiscal review panel found that strengthening the educational support systems
across the state, improving the consistency of the delivery of special education
throughout the state, improving the recruitment, training and retention of
special education teachers and administrators, and improving the ability of all
teachers and administrators to meet the educational needs of all students could
help districts to control special education costs.
      (4) Early prevention and intervention services targeted to children who
are at risk of becoming special education eligible can reduce the number of
students who will eventually need special education services.
      (5) Early prevention and intervention services are often less expensive
than special education services, and may only be necessary for a short time in
order to enable a student to succeed in the general education environment.
       (6) The department of education should provide more technical and legal
assistance to help school districts control special education costs and improve
educational outcomes for students.
       (7) In its work with school districts, the department of education should
emphasize effective and efficient management of delivering special education
services statewide.
   (b) Therefore, it is the intent of the general assembly to provide services
that will help school districts to contain increases in total special education
spending in Vermont, while continuing to deliver appropriate services that
meet the needs of Vermont’s students.
Sec. 2. CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES; ELIGIBILITY
   Co-curricular activities are an important part of a student’s educational
experience. Therefore, a decision made by the Vermont principal’s association
denying a student the opportunity to participate in a co-curricular activity may
be appealed to the state board of education. A decision of the state board
regarding eligibility shall be final.
Sec. 3. 16 V.S.A. § 2902(a) is amended to read:
   (a) Within each school district's comprehensive system of educational
services, each public school shall develop and maintain an educational support
system for children who require additional assistance in order to succeed or be
challenged in the general education environment. For each school it maintains,
1353                      WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
a school district board shall assign responsibility for developing and
maintaining the educational support system to the superintendent pursuant to a
contract entered into under section 267 of this title, or to the principal. The
educational support system shall, at a minimum, include an educational
support team and a range of support and remedial services, including
instructional and behavioral interventions and accommodations.
Sec. 4. 16 V.S.A. § 2904 is added to read:
§ 2904. REPORTS
   Annually, each superintendent shall report to the commissioner in a form
prescribed by the commissioner, on the status of the educational support
systems in each school in the supervisory union. The report shall describe the
services and supports that are a part of the education support system, how they
are funded, and how building the capacity of the educational support system
has been addressed in the school action plans. The report shall include a
description and justification of how the following funds were used:
      (1) as required under subsection 2959a(e) of this title, funds received
due to Medicaid reimbursement,
       (2) for a school district required to provide learning readiness
experiences for preschool age children or early reading and math experiences
for school age children pursuant to subsection 4011(d) of this title, funds
attributable to an increase in student count due to the poverty ratio of the
district and the number of students with limited English proficiency.
Sec. 5. 16 V.S.A. § 2904(2) is amended to read:
      (2) "Special education" means, to the extent required by federal law,
specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents or guardian, to meet the
unique educational needs of a child with a disability, including classroom
instruction, instruction in physical education, home instruction, and instruction
in hospitals and institutions. The term includes "related services" as defined in
federal law.
Sec. 6. 16 V.S.A. § 2959b is added to read:
§ 2959b. INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PLANS
   A school district or supervisory union responsible for developing an
individualized education plan for a child with a disability may consider the
cost of the provision of special education or related services to the child if:
      (1) the district or supervisory union has developed the individualized
education plan in accordance with federal law through an individualized plan
team that included the parents;
                           JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                              1354
       (2) the individualized education plan team has determined that the
child’s placement contained in the plan is appropriate for the child as that term
is defined in federal law; and
      (3) all the options under consideration by the district or supervisory
union for fulfilling the requirements of the child’s individualized education
plan would constitute a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment for the child, as those terms are defined in federal law.
Sec. 7. 16 V.S.A. § 2974(a) is amended to read:
   (a) Annually, the commissioner shall report on:
      (1) special education expenditures by school districts,
      (2) the rate of growth or decrease in special education costs,
      (3) outcomes for special education students,
      (4) the availability of special education staff,
      (5) the consistency of special education program implementation
   statewide, and
      (6) the status of the education support systems in school districts.
Sec. 8. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION; PLAN TO CONTAIN
        SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS WHILE CONTINUING TO MEET
        THE NEEDS OF ALL VERMONT STUDENTS
   (a) During the next two school years, the commissioner of education and
the state board of education shall develop and implement a plan which shall
include the elements described in this section. The goals of the plan shall be to
help:
      (1) reduce statewide increases in special education costs while
continuing to meet the needs of all Vermont students;
     (2) increase the capacity of general education, especially the educational
support system, to meet the needs of more students outside special education;
      (3) use cost-effective practices; and
      (4) operate special education programs consistently and within state and
federal requirements across the state.
   (b) The commissioner shall help to increase the capacity of general
education to meet the needs of more students outside special education by
forming a partnership with higher education to accomplish the goals of this
1355                      WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
subsection. The plan shall also describe how the commissioner and higher
education will each contribute to accomplishing the goals. The goals are to:
     (1) provide increased and improved training opportunities for general
education teachers, administrators and para-educators, on techniques for
meeting the instructional needs of all students; and
      (2) improve the preparation of all teachers to be effective in an inclusive
classroom.
   (c) The commissioner shall help to increase the capacity of the educational
support system to meet the needs of more students outside special education by
focusing department resources and time on strengthening the educational
support system in Vermont public schools, and working with higher education,
superintendents, principals, teachers, school boards and other interested groups
to seek and use federal and other funds, including Medicaid reimbursements
for students served under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as
amended, to accomplish this purpose. The commissioner shall focus on
strengthening the following components of each educational support system:
       (1) pre-school through fourth grade literacy;
      (2)     prevention and intervention for emotional and behavioral
difficulties;
       (3) other prevention and intervention components; and
   (d) The commissioner shall provide support for special education teachers
and administrators, and help in using cost-effective practices by:
       (1) forming a partnership with higher education and school districts to
develop and implement a plan to build the capacity to increase the availability
of qualified staff in critical need areas, including special education teachers,
speech pathologists, related services providers and administrators by
improving their recruitment and retention, and developing additional training
opportunities and incentives in these areas. The plan shall also include
training opportunities for staff, including para-educators, currently working in
school districts and describe how higher education institutions, the department
of education and school districts will each contribute to meeting these critical
needs;
      (2) providing legal support, information and training to avoid conflict
and assist in making cost-effective legal and procedural decisions;
      (3) hiring staff or consultants, or both, who are experts in provision of
special education services, including experts in particular disability areas, and
making them available to provide technical assistance and training;
                           JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                             1356
       (4) providing guidance to school districts on reducing the rate of
increase in special education costs to a sustainable level during the preparation
of district special education service plans; and
     (5) working with the University of Vermont to develop a decision-
making model for individualized education program teams to use, and working
with higher education to ensure that pre-service training and professional
development opportunities are available to teach special educators and others
who serve on individualized education program teams to use the decision-
making model.
   (e) The commissioner shall help to ensure that special education programs
are being operated consistently and in a cost-effective manner across the state
by:
      (1) studying the individualized education plans of most common
disability areas, and by June 30, 2001, providing schools with data on the types
and range of services provided statewide and associated costs;
     (2) increasing departmental capacity to audit and monitor special
education programs in Vermont public schools, and auditing every supervisory
union and district by December 31, 2002. The commissioner shall provide
school districts with more specific guidance regarding cost allocation to special
education, and what documentation and data needs to be maintained to
complete an audit;
       (3) providing training to school district leaders who shall advise and
train school staff on cost-effective practices in special education, and how to
ensure that eligibility decisions and development of individualized education
plans are more consistent across the state; and
      (4) working with the state board of education to adopt rules which more
clearly define eligibility criteria for special education, and to provide
guidelines on the implementation of eligibility criteria which emphasize cost
containment and consistent application of eligibility criteria. Following
adoption of the rules, the commissioner shall provide training and materials to
school district staff on the rule revisions and guidelines. The rule revisions and
guidelines shall, at a minimum, address the adverse effect criterion used to
identify when a disability has a negative effect on a child’s academic progress,
and the following:
         (A) Emotional disability.
         (B) Learning disability.
         (C) Developmental delay.
1357                       WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
          (D) Other health impairment.
          (E) Attention deficit disorder.
   (f) The commissioner and state board of education shall work with the
general assembly, the education coalition and school districts to:
      (1)   develop recommendations regarding changes to the special
education funding formula that do not shift a greater burden onto the local
level. On or before January 15, 2004, the commissioner shall recommend to
the governor and the general assembly a fiscally sustainable formula for
funding special education; and
      (2) address additional areas that require attention in order to contain
costs and strengthen the special education system, including the residential
placement review process, third party billing for special education medical
services and cost effectiveness of regional programs for children with special
needs.
Sec. 9. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION; REPORTS
   (a) On or before January 15 in years 2001 and 2002, the commissioner
shall report to the Senate and House committees on education concerning the
progress made toward strengthening the educational support system in
Vermont public schools, containing special education costs and improving
outcomes for students with disabilities.
       (1) In year 2001, the report shall include:
         (A) an update on the activities carried out under the plan made
pursuant to Sec. 8 of this act;
         (B) an examination of the equity of the core staff rules adopted under
16 V.S.A. § 2961 regarding calculation of state aid for special education,
including proposed changes that would make the rules more equitable, and
actions that have been taken or contemplated to make the rules more equitable;
         (C) recommendations for additional steps to ensure that Vermont will
achieve a sustainable level of growth in special education costs by fiscal year
2003, and
         (D) recommendations, including the potential for the use of
technology, to reduce the overly burdensome paperwork associated with the
provision of special education and related services.
       (2) In year 2002, the report shall include:
          (A) a final report on all applicable items in the year 2001 report;
                          JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                            1358
         (B) recommendations for statutory change that would enable further
strengthening of the educational support system, including the most effective
funding mechanism for achieving this end;
         (C) a plan to increase consistency of delivery of special education
statewide; and
          (D) a plan for future actions that will continue to contain special
education costs, and a projection of special education cost increases through
fiscal year 2007.
   (b) The commissioner of education shall monitor external factors, outside
the control of the school district and the department of education, which affect
the cost of providing special education services. Annually through the year
2007, on or before January 15, the commissioner shall report to the governor
and the general assembly on external factors that have contributed to cost
increases and quantify the amount of increase directly attributable to these
factors.
Sec. 10. ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH UNUSUAL
         SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS
   (a) In fiscal years 2002 through 2004, the commissioner may use up to two
percent of the funds appropriated for special education expenditures as that
term is defined in subsection 2967(b) of Title 16 for the purpose of directly
assisting school districts with special education expenditures of an unusual or
unexpected nature.        These funds shall not be used for exceptional
circumstances which are funded under section 2963a of Title 16. A decision of
the commissioner as to eligibility for assistance and amount of assistance
received shall be final.
    (b) In order to be eligible for assistance under this subsection, during at
least two of the quarters of the prior fiscal year, a school district shall have
submitted Medicaid bills for services reimbursement for at least 85 percent of
its Medicaid eligible students who received medically-related special education
services. However, the commissioner may provide assistance to a school
district which does not reach the 85 percent target if the district made a
reasonable attempt to reach the target but was prevented from reaching it by
extraordinary circumstances.
   (c) The state board of education shall adopt rules necessary to establish
standards and procedures for implementation of this section.
   (d) Annually, on or before January 15, the commissioner shall report to the
general assembly on the amount and use of funds expended under this
subsection.
1359                      WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
Sec. 11. TARGETS FOR INCREASES IN STATEWIDE TOTAL SPECIAL
         EDUCATION EXPENDITURES
   (a) The general assembly hereby establishes the following targets for
limiting increases in statewide total education expenditures as that term is used
in 16 V.S.A. § 2967(b):
     (1) in fiscal year 2002, the average annual change in the actual nominal
Vermont State Domestic Product for the preceding five years as published by
the United States Department of Commerce, plus four percentage points;
     (2) in fiscal year 2003, the average annual change in the actual nominal
Vermont State Domestic Product for the preceding five years as published by
the United States Department of Commerce, plus three percentage points;
     (3) in fiscal year 2004, the average annual change in the actual nominal
Vermont State Domestic Product for the preceding five years as published by
the United States Department of Commerce, plus two percentage points.
   (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 101 of Title 16, in fiscal
years 2002 through 2004, the amount appropriated by the general assembly to
provide state aid for special education shall be no more than the amount that
would be appropriated if statewide total special education expenditures grew
by the target amounts.
   (c) If, in any fiscal year, the actual increase in special education costs is
less than the target amount, an amount equal to the state share, if spending had
increased at the target amount, shall be appropriated from the education fund to
be paid for support of special education in accordance with subsection 2967(b)
of Title 16.
Sec. 12. REPEAL
   In order to enable the commissioner of education to use the tools provided
in this act to strengthen the educational support system and reduce the rate of
increase in special education costs to a sustainable level, and in order to give
the general assembly time to assess the cost saving effects of the provisions of
this act, implementation of the caps imposed in Sec. 120(a) of No. 71 of the
Acts of 1998, relating to limits to state aid for special education, is repealed.
Sec. 13. SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES PROVISIONS; STUDY
    The secretary of administration and the Joint Fiscal Office in consultation
with the secretary of the agency of human services the commissioners of the
department of education and the department of employment and training the
Vermont Superintendents' Association the Vermont School Board Association
and other members of the education community shall study how the agency of
                           JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                          1360
human services the department of education and the department of
employment and training should provide for special education services for
eligible persons under 22 years of age in school or out of school. They shall
also assess:
   (1) the extent to which school districts have absorbed service costs for
special needs children that were historically paid by other service providers
including the extent to which:
         (A) children formerly admitted t institutional care are now being
provided services through special education
         (B) costs now found in school budgets historically were part of the
budgets of non-school agencies and
         (C) costs now found in school budgets would be attributable to non-
school agencies:
   (2) examine whether the upper limit of age eligibility should be 21 or 22
years of age:
   (3) examine the inter-agency agreement regarding coordination of special
education services entered into pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(12) to
determine if services are currently provided and paid for in the most
appropriate and cost-effective way: and
   (4) report their findings and recommendations to the genera1 assembly by
January 15, 2001.
  And the Senate further proposes that after passage, the title of the bill be
amended to read: AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE CAPACITY OF
VERMONT’S EDUCATION SYSTEM TO MEET THE EDUCATIONAL
NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS
Pending the question, Shall the House concur in the Senate proposal of
amendment? Rep. Vincent of Waterbury, recommended the House concur in
the Senate proposal of amendment with the following amendment thereto:
  By striking Sec. 2 in its entirety.
and by renumbering the remaining sections to be numerically correct
  Which was agreed to.
  On motion of Rep. Freed of Dorset, the rules were suspended and the bill
was ordered messaged to the Senate forthwith.
                           Action on Bill Postponed
                                        S. 203
1361                      WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
   House bill, entitled
   An act relating to public school choice in grades 9-12;
   Was taken up and pending the reading of the report of the committee on
Education, on motion of Rep. Cross of Winooski, action on the bill was
postponed until the next legislative day.
                   Joint Resolution Referred to Committee
                                     J.R.S. 98
   The Speaker placed before the House a joint resolution, entitled
   Joint resolution urging the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Congress to
reconsider federal polices that restrict the cultivation and marketing of
industrial hemp and related products;
   By Senators Ready and Illuzzi;
   Whereas, a variety of farming activities are all significant components of
Vermont’s agricultural economy, and despite Vermonters’ dedicated efforts,
many of the agricultural endeavors that have traditionally provided the
economic sustenance for our state are no longer as financially rewarding as in
years past, and
    Whereas, a potentially profitable new source for agricultural development is
the planting and harvesting of industrial hemp (cannabis sativa L. with a
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of less than 1%), which has a multitude of
commercial uses including food for animal and human consumption, textile
fiber, building materials and composites, fuel and industrial lubricants, paper
and other fiber products, and
   Whereas, in 1996, the Vermont General Assembly enacted Act No. 176,
which directed the University of Vermont to investigate the viability of
industrial hemp, and the study found probable economic benefits from a
Vermont hemp industry, and
   Whereas, a 1996 statistically representative survey of the Vermont
population found that 77% of Vermonters support changing the laws so that
farmers can grow industrial hemp in Vermont, and
   Whereas, a 1999 University of Kentucky report and current trade data from
Canada further support the economic viability of industrial hemp as an
alternative crop and sustainable resource for numerous markets, and
   Whereas, the stringent federal criteria established under 21 U.S.C. § 823
and its implementing regulation, 21 C.F.R. § 1301.71 and .72 present a nearly
                           JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                             1362
insurmountable barrier to the initiation of an industrial hemp crop in Vermont,
and
   Whereas, more than 30 countries, including Canada, currently permit the
cultivation and production of low-THC industrial hemp, and
   Whereas, in 1999 the legislatures of North Dakota, Minnesota and Hawaii
passed legislation permitting farmers to grow industrial hemp, and on
December l4, 1999, a test plot of low-THC cannabis was planted on Hawaiian
soil, and
   Whereas, The United States is the largest importer of foreign-grown hemp
based materials and products in the world, and
   Whereas, until federal barriers to the cultivation and production of industrial
hemp are lifted, the State of Vermont is being deprived of taking part in this
agriculturally based emerging international market, now therefore be it
   RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
   That the General Assembly recognizes the differentiation between industrial
hemp and marijuana, industrial hemp being those plants of cannabis sativa L.
that contain a THC concentration of one percent or less by weight, and be it
further
   RESOLVED: That the General Assembly strongly urges DEA, the
National Office of Drug Control Policy, and the USDA to collaboratively
develop and adopt an official definition of industrial hemp, and recognize a
one percent THC level, or less, as the standard for industrial hemp, and be it
further
   RESOLVED: That the General Assembly strongly urges Congress to
amend U.S. Code sections 21 U.S.C. § 812 (10) and 21 U.S.C. § 841 to
distinguish between marijuana and industrial hemp as they relate to production,
possession, delivery, and intended use, and be it further
    RESOLVED: That the General Assembly requests the DEA and the USDA
to review the procedures under which their Canadian counterparts are
authorized to sanction the commercial development of industrial hemp, and be
it further
   RESOLVED: That the General Assembly strongly urges Congress
statutorily to direct the DEA to revise its policies to be less restrictive and to
allow states to establish state regulatory programs that may be similar to the
Canadian model, thus fostering the development of domestic hemp industries,
and be it further
   RESOLVED: That the General Assembly requests Congress to establish a
1363                     WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
comprehensive new hemp research program to update the scientific knowledge
of industrial hemp, and to authorize a certified seed and germ plasma bank, and
be it further
   RESOLVED: That the General Assembly requests Congress to appropriate
funds for a USDA line budget item dedicated to hemp related research and
market development, and be it further
   RESOLVED: That the Secretary of State be directed to send a copy of this
resolution to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Acting U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administrator Donnie R. Marshall, U.S. Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
U.S. Senator James M. Jeffords, U.S. Representative Bernard Sanders, and to
the President of the United States.
   Which was read and, in the Speaker’s discretion, treated as a bill and
referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
                  Joint Resolution Referred to Committee
                                    J.R.S. 107
   The Speaker placed before the House a joint resolution, entitled
   Joint resolution relating to urging the other 49 states to follow Vermont's
example and contribute three dollars to the National World War II Memorial
for each of its veterans of that conflict.
   By Senators Brownell, Ankeney, Backus, Bahre, Bartlett, Bloomer, Canns,
Chard, Costes, Crowley, Cummings, Doyle, Greenwood, Ide, Illuzzi, Kittell,
Leddy, MacDonald, Maynard, Mazza, McCormack, Morrissey, Munt,
Ptashnik, Ready, Riehle, Rivers, Sears, Shumlin and Spaulding,
  Whereas, millions of Americans served during World War II, our nation’s
most all-encompassing 20th century military conflict, and
   Whereas, while thousands of cities and towns have erected memorials to the
brave men and women who served in the United States Armed Forces during
the nation’s most serious 20th century military conflict, a national memorial to
praise and remember all of these heroic veterans has never been erected, and
   Whereas, to remedy this significant oversight in honoring America’s
veterans, in 1993, the United States Congress enacted Public Law 103-32 to
authorize the construction of a World War II Memorial in the District of
Columbia or its environs, and
  Whereas, on September 30, 1993, the President appointed a special
Memorial Advisory Board (MAB) to advise the American Battle Monument
Commission (ABMC) in selecting a site for this much awaited tribute to both
                           JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE                               1364
the 172,218 U.S. combatants who perished in the war, as well as the millions
of other Americans who proudly served in defense of liberty and freedom, and
   Whereas, on March 2, 1995, the MAB and the ABMC jointly selected a
most appropriate site, Constitution Gardens on the Washington Mall, as the
future home of the memorial, and
   Whereas, it is hoped that construction of this inspiring monument will begin
no later than Veterans’ Day, November 11, 2000, and
   Whereas, the World War II Memorial Campaign, which has been
designated as the official fundraiser for this historically significant edifice, has
launched a drive to encourage every state to contribute $1.00 for each of the
state’s veterans who served in the conflict, and
   Whereas, not only has Vermont met this request but has gone much further
and contributed a total of $3.00 for each Vermont World War II Veteran, now
therefore be it
   RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
   That the General Assembly urges the other 49 states of the union to
contribute $3.00 for each of the states’ World War II Veterans, towards the
construction of the National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., and
be it further
   RESOLVED: That the Secretary of State be directed to send a copy of this
resolution to the governors of the other 49 states and to the World War II
Memorial Campaign in Arlington, Virginia.
   Which was read and, in the Speaker’s discretion, treated as a bill and
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
                                  Adjournment
   At five o’clock and five minutes in the afternoon, on motion of Rep. Fyfe
of Newport City, the House adjourned until tomorrow at nine o’clock in the
forenoon.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Free Georgia Affidavit of Truth Template document sample