WEST LEBANON — As the legislative sessions reach the halfway point in New Hampshire and Vermont, state lawmakers representing parts of the Upper Valley are casting votes on hundreds of pieces of legislation.
While lawmakers are asked to form opinions on dozens of issues over the course of a legislative session, they also have specific bills that they have championed and shepherded through hearings and committee votes on the way to being signed into law, they hope.
The Valley News checked in with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the bills they have devoted their time to in Montpelier and Concord, on issues such as health care, education, agriculture, data privacy and the environment.
Common themes among the politicians’ work was a goal to protect people in rural communities and a desire for consensus on divisive bills that would have a direct impact on the communities they represent.
State Sen. Sue Prentiss (D-Lebanon)
As the New Hampshire District 5 Senator, Sue Prentiss represents the Upper Valley towns of Lebanon, Canaan, Enfield, Grantham, Hanover, New London, Orford, Plainfield and Springfield. She sits on the Health and Human Services Committee and on the Education Committee.
For Prentiss, the most important part of her role is ensuring access to health care. Her number one bill this session has been SB613, which would help ensure critical access hospitals don’t lose patients to new, larger medical facilities, which could force a closure.
Introduced by Prentiss on March 4, this bill would establish a 15-mile radius around critical access hospitals, or CAHs, which are rural care facilities. CAHs receive federal funding from Medicare and may only have 25 beds and allow for a 72-hour maximum length of stay.
New Hampshire CAHs in the Upper Valley include Alice Peck Day Memorial Hospital in Lebanon, Cottage Hospital in Woodsville, New London Hospital and Valley Regional Healthcare in Claremont.
New facilities, such as a dialysis center, free standing birthing center or urgent care center would be required to provide written notice of plans to operate within the 15-mile radius so CAHs can assess impacts to their operations.
The 15-mile buffer was previously signed into law in 2019, but was repealed last year. Prentiss believes the repeal was to allow for a free-market approach to health care. However, she feels that critical access hospitals are at the center of their communities and competition could drive them out.
“Critical access hospitals are already working on a very thin margin,” Prentiss said earlier this month by phone.
Compromising CAHs through competition could draw staff and patients away, endangering the facilities to downsize or close, Prentiss said. Closure of a CAH could destabilize access to health care in its rural area, take care away from those who need it and negatively impact the local economy.
“I am laser focused on getting this type of bill passed so we can stabilize and protect our critical access hospitals and the communities that depend on them,” said Prentiss.
A loss of a CAH could force patients to travel further for care, and many rural areas do not have public transportation available, she added.
“We take for granted that we can drive around Lebanon or jump on Advanced Transit,” said Prentiss.
SB613 heads to the Senate floor for a vote next week, Prentiss said Thursday by email.
Prentiss also is passionate about a bill that would require public schools to have tourniquets publicly available.
SB429 would bring tourniquets to public schools as a precautionary measure in the event of an emergency where bleeding control is dire. The Legislature already passed SB204 three years ago, which put tourniquets in state-owned buildings.
Trauma is a leading cause of death in the state for people between the ages of 1 and 44 years old, according to the National Library of Medicine. Hemorrhage control is a form of immediate intervention that save lives when time is of the essence, said Prentiss.
“You can bleed completely out in under five minutes if bleeding is not controlled,” said Prentiss, who has over 20 years of experience in EMS, including as New Hampshire’s first female chief of EMS at the Department of Safety.
Each kit is $33, said Prentiss. By having them available, bystanders can jump into action, instead of waiting for emergency services.
SB429 passed through the Senate and has been introduced in the House Education Policy and Administration Committee, according to the N.H. General Courts website. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday at 10:30 a.m.
State Rep. Jim Masland (D-Thetford)
As the representative for Vermont Windsor-Orange 2, Jim Masland represents the Upper Valley towns of Norwich, Strafford, Thetford and Sharon. As a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, much of Masland’s time has been spent in the weeds of Act 73, a school district overhaul bill signed into law by Gov. Phil Scott and expected to go into full effect in 2028.
When Act 73 passed last year, the House Education Committee’s first task was to come up with maps for the new school district. The fundamental flaw with this bill, however, is the assumption that legislators can agree on how it’s done, said Masland.
“It essentially granted permission for the state to make this change, but it didn’t outline exactly how this change would be made,” Masland said by phone earlier this month.
Act 73 was passed primarily in the interest of saving money because it would cut down the number of teachers and high-salaried administrators. Proponents of the bill have also promised improved learning outcomes, though Masland said he has not seen evidence that will be the case.
There have been two main proposals for how to make Act 73 a reality. The first involves forming bigger districts town by town, and the second allows for voluntary mergers, leaving it up to the schools to pool their resources. Neither proposal has the votes to get out of committee, let alone out of the House or Senate, said Masland.
“If we can’t agree on district boundaries, then the rest of Act 73 is just treading water,” said Masland.
The discussion has taken up time in the Vermont House.
“We’re no closer, I’d say in general terms, now than we were in January, or when the two proposals first appeared on the horizon,” said Masland.
Despite the deadlines in Act 73, Masland predicted the school district boundary issue will not be resolved during in this legislative session because those in favor of forced consolidation and those in favor of voluntary consolidation are “miles apart.”
“The disagreement crosses party lines, and it’s not House versus Senate, it’s not Republican versus Democrat or Progressive,” said Masland.
Masland favors voluntary consolidation because then the district members themselves could come to a consensus on how to best share services to achieve the desired outcome of Act 73.
“We may have too many small schools, but it would be far better to have the communities decide for themselves, ” said Masland.
All constituent feedback Masland has heard regarding forced consolidation has been against it. He said he would refuse to vote in favor of such a model under any circumstance.
State Sen. Daniel Innis (R-Bradford, N.H.)
As the New Hampshire District 7 Senator, Daniel Innis represents the Upper Valley towns of Grafton and Orange. He chairs the Commerce Committee and also sits on the Education Finance Committee and Finance Committee.
Innis is particularly passionate about HB396, a meat deregulation bill he co-sponsored. If enacted, it would help small farms bring meat from cattle, swine, sheep and goats to market without USDA inspections from approved slaughter facilities.
Currently, animals need to pass these inspections for the meat to be sold to grocery stores and restaurants. Innis, himself, is a farmer directly impacted by these restrictions as an owner of the 153-acre Trails End Acres farm in Bradford, N.H. He feels the current system is designed to keep farms like his out of the market.
“We can’t sell our Wagyu beef to the Concord Co-op, for example, unless we go to a USDA facility,” said Innis.
These USDA facilities are “few and far between,” and often involve traveling with animals in trailers. They can be stuck sitting in there for two days, said Innis.
“It’s inhumane, and it’s wrong. You get cortisol flowing through the body and the meat isn’t as good,” said Innis.
Despite a trend toward farm-to-table products in many agricultural areas, New Hampshire farms raising livestock has been suffering under restrictions such as this one, Innis said.
“The big meat producers are lobbying to keep these rules in place,” said Innis.
The USDA facility often doesn’t have availability right away, said Innis. It can take two years to get an appointment, which doesn’t work for small farmers.
There are four USDA-approved slaughter facilities in New Hampshire, with one in the Upper Valley on Benton Road in North Haverhill. The other three are located in Barnstead, Conway and Goffstown.
Instead, commercial meat tends to be shipped across the country, he said.
“We have a huge need here to basically save our farms, but also to get better food to people,” said Innis. “I’d rather be able to look at the farm that my meat comes from than know it was some animal on a feed lot in Colorado that lived a brutal, terrible life.”
HB396 was passed by the house, and remains in the Senate Commerce Committee as of Friday, according to the N.H. General Court website. The committee plans to amend it in the next few weeks with minor changes, said Innis.
State Rep. Monique Priestley (D-Bradford, Vt.)
As a representative for Vermont Orange 2, Monique Priestley serves the Upper Valley towns of Bradford, Fairlee and West Fairlee.
In Montpelier, Priestley serves as clerk on the Committee of Commerce and Economic Development and also sits on the Joint Information Technology Oversight Committee. Her legislative focus this session has been on data privacy, specifically through the Consumer Data Privacy Act and the Delete Act.
Priestley is concerned about constituents’ data being used in an attempt to manipulate them through targeted advertising. When data brokers collect personal information on the internet, it can be used to build a profile about consumers that they have no say in, she said.
Priestley is pushing for a strong consumer protection bill in Vermont, particularly one that limits what information is taken and returns the control to the consumer.
The Vermont Data Privacy Act, S.71, seeks to give Vermonters control over what information about them is available to registered data brokers. Currently, residents have no rights to ask a website to update or delete their information, or to know what’s being collected.
“This bill would give those basic rights to Vermonters,” Priestley said last month by phone.
Consumers would reach out to the company in question that’s collecting their data. If the company refuses to delete, edit or provide the information collected, it becomes subject to legal action by the state Attorney General’s Office. Priestley is also working to give individuals the right to sue, since the AG handles larger cases. As of last year, 20 states, including New Hampshire, already provide this.
Sensitive data is sometimes used for targeted advertising, including race, religion, gender and sexuality.
“That information is often inferred and not even necessarily correct,” Priestley said
S.71 would make data collection and use more restrictive.
“It’s one of the bills that the public is asking for the loudest.”
Vermont was the first state to have a data broker registry, enacted in 2019. The Delete Act, H.211, would offer a one-stop shop for people to access their information and make decisions about it. Through this centralized online portal, brokers would be notified to act accordingly.
S.71 passed in the Senate last year, but remains in the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development for consideration, which Priestley said will happen in the next couple weeks. If passed this session, it would take effect in July.
H.211 passed out of the Commerce Committee and the Committee on Ways and Means. If also passed by the Committee on Appropriations, it will go to the House floor.
State Rep. Michael Tagliavia (R-Corinth)
As the Vermont Orange-1 District representative, Michael Tagliavia represents the Upper Valley town of Corinth and Vershire. He serves on the Environment Committee, which deals with land use and clean water, he said. He also sits on the Canvassing Committee.
Back in September, Gov. Phil Scott issued an executive order intended to increase housing. To allow for more construction, this order would streamline permitting and reduce the buffer zone for wetlands in municipal areas from 50 feet to 25 feet.
In a January session, the Environment Committee worked to review wetland statutes.
“We have statutes that we passed into law that are supposedly in place to try to increase housing and improve the economy, and yet, we have committee hearings talking about how the governor’s EO can’t go forward because of wetland rules,” said Tagliavia.
The Legislature determines the buffer zone for Class 2 wetlands, not the governor, Tagliavia said. There were several committee hearings designed to shut down the possibility of a reduction.
“Basically, there was no appetite to accommodate the governor,” said Tagliavia.
Act 181, similarly intended to streamline construction permitting, was introduced as a reform of Act 250, a land-use law that passed in 1970. Designations for new construction were previously based on scale of the project, but would now be based on location tiers for designated growth areas.
Tier 1 areas, seen as high priority for development, will experience relaxed Act 250 regulations, while Tier 3 areas, seen as ecologically sensitive, will experience increased protections. Tier 2 areas involve land that is not designated under the other two tiers, and will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
While Act 181 is supposed to take effect at the end of 2026, it has been delayed due to certain provisions related to ecosystem mapping and development restrictions in rural areas.
“Act 181 has a number of unintended consequences for mostly rural Vermont that need to be attended to,” said Tagliavia, referring mainly to a higher cost of living that comes with increased development, which could drive people out of rural communities.
Tagliavia feels that some bills aren’t being prioritized in the Environment Committee, such as H.730, which outlines concerns with Act 181 by calling for a regulation of development in wetlands.
Tagliavia also said that decreasing the buffer zone from 50 feet to 25 feet should be determined by the Department of Environmental Conservation on a case by case basis, with aspects of the specific project and land characteristics both taken into consideration ahead of a decision.
Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats in the Vermont House.
“We are still in the minority by about 20 or 25 votes. We do not have the ability to steer the agenda in most of these committees,” said Tagliavia.
There is also the issue of competing goals. The desire for preservation of land clashes with the desire to boost the economy and build more housing.
“We’re sending a mixed message to our voters and that, for me, is a big problem,” said Tagliavia.
Tagliavia considers it “a blessing and a curse” that the Environment Committee hasn’t passed out a number of bills this session. On one hand, there haven’t been new restrictions or taxation on voters, but there also hasn’t been much relief coming out of the committee either.