This week I’ll
give a summary of votes I’ve cast on some of the significant bills that have
come through in the past two weeks. For others of particular interest to you,
please get in touch to ask me directly.
GMOs
I voted to
support this bill, which would require labeling of foods with ingredients from
genetically modified sources, despite the near certainty of a lawsuit on
constitutional grounds by GMO companies. My rationale is summed up in the vote
explanation I placed on the record:
“I have always supported the
consumer right to have information on the content of the food they buy. My
better judgment would go against supporting a bill with such potential for a
high financial liability. My constituents, however, strongly endorse it despite
that potential cost, so I cede to that judgment and choice.”
School Consolidation
I think we need
to move in the direction of larger districts so that our students have access
to more opportunities and we gain from economies of scale and more consistent
planning. I was therefore tempted to support this bill to get that conversation
going.
We have the
smallest districts in the country at 299 students per district. New Hampshire
has average districts of 1,200 students and Maine 818. We know we have one of
the highest per pupil costs, rising at an unsustainable level.
However, this
bill does not address the fundamental problems of the dynamics of cost and of
the property tax burden, and I fear that if it passes (having “done something”)
we will lose focus and pressure on addressing these more critical underlying
issues.
I voted no; the
bill passed on a relatively close 75-62 vote, and it is now up to the Senate to
react in the short time remaining this session.
Toxic Chemicals
The Senate sent
over a broad bill covering all consumer products, and the House narrowed it to
focus on chemicals that are of particular concern for exposure to children under
age 12. An example: there are some very toxic ingredients in play cosmetics
marketed for little girls.
These will be
listed on a Department of Health web site, and there can be additions to the list
if new ones are identified. My committee has spent a great deal of time in past
years addressing chemicals on a case-by-case basis, and this bill will allow
regulation without repeat legislative action. I voted to support it.
Raw Milk
The bill to
permit delivery and pick up at farmer’s markets for customers who are already
signed up and have visited the farm was a minimal expansion of current law. I
voted yes, but regretted that it did not go farther.
Health Care
This bill adds
detail to the information that needs to be gathered before the viability of a universal
access health care system can be determined. It also gave the governor a new,
January 2015, deadline for sharing a plan for financing it. He already is in
violation of a 2013 legislative directive, and of his own promise to provide it
a year late this spring.
The good news in
this bill was the upfront acknowledgement that the plan cannot go forward
without full fiscal analysis and that 2017 is not a target deadline of the
legislature, regardless of what the governor may say.
The down side of
dropping an artificial start date is extending the uncertainty about the
outcome of this entire reform effort.
We are still a
long way from even asking the right questions. For example, regulations for a
federal waiver of the Affordable Care Act, which would have to be received
before Green Mountain Care could get underway, include the required submission
of a 10-year budget to show sustainability.
Our current law
only requires a 5-year budget, and this new bill did not change anything in
identifying what we mean by “sustainable.”
Most startling is
the requirement in the bill for the administration to submit a “conceptual
waiver application” to the federal government by this November 15 (two months
before the new due date for a financing plan.)
I looked up the
federal law and regulations and found no reference anywhere to anything
resembling a “conceptual waiver application,” and under my questioning on the
floor, the Health Care Committee chair acknowledged that no such application
exists!
I asked for a
vote to remove that part of the bill – suggesting it was an embarrassment to be
directing the administration to pursue an impossible action – but the committee
did not back down so the vote failed along party lines. I voted against the
full bill as well.
Involuntary Medication
I co-presented
the bill changing some of the procedures for when persons in a psychiatric
crisis can be subjected to a court order for medication over their opposition if
they do not have the capacity to make a medical decision.
This relates to
persons who have already been involuntarily hospitalized because it is believed
they are a danger to themselves or others. The medications are themselves
controversial because of questions about whether long term risks outweigh the
short term benefit of stabilizing an illness.
It is a terrible
affront to human dignity to forcibly medicate someone. Both my Human Services
Committee and the Judiciary Committee worked very hard to maintain the delicate
balance between allowing as much time as possible for a doctor-patient relationship
to result in a collaborative treatment plan, yet allowing for informed consent
to medication to be decided by a judge when there is no other option.
Our bill, which
passed on a 132-6 vote, was narrower than the Senate version, so it will be
going to a conference committee to resolve the difference.
Marijuana
My committee worked
on a Senate bill making judicious revisions to our law protecting people from
prosecution if using marijuana to relieve symptoms of specific severe illnesses.
Our bill was hijacked on the House floor through an amendment adding a tax
study on legalization of marijuana.
I don’t mind the
idea of the study nearly as much as I minded mixing these two very different
issues, and I voted against the bill that I had supported in my own committee.
The Senate accepted our changes so the bill is headed to the governor for
signature.
Coming from the Senate
I was pleased to
see my Taser bill pass the Senate. It will require statewide standards for safe
and appropriate use of Tasers, along with required training in mental health
interventions for all police officers in the state.
The Reach Up work
incentive bill from my committee is being sent back by the Senate with radical
alterations. Instead of an internal, cost neutral budget by taking a small
amount (less than $5 a week) from current public assistance grants, the bill
would take the funding from caseload reduction savings. Since those savings
would normally be used elsewhere in the budget, this is no longer a neutral
shift.
It also uses the
funds to supplement child care grants instead of permitting families to keep a
higher amount of work income. This is clearly much less of a return on the
investment in work, and eviscerates the bill. It was a bright star of this
session, and hopefully will make it into law through another route.
Contact me with a message about any of the issues
that will be coming rapid-fire through the legislature in these final days. You
can call me at home at 485-6431or at the legislature at 828-2228, or by email
at counterp@tds.net.
No comments:
Post a Comment