If we are truly going to finish the session by May 6 – a week ahead of what we are budgeted for – everyone’s heads will be spinning in the last few days. Most major bills have not even reached the point of a conference committee to resolve competing House and Senate versions. The budget just went to conference on Friday.
What is the big rush? Three members of the Senate are running for U.S. Congress member Peter Welch’s open seat, and they want to get onto the campaign trail. Hopefully we will not succumb to pressure by voting bills through without even time to read them. I’ve fought that in the past and certainly would again.
***
Health Care Example
My committee just voted out a significantly changed version of the major health care bill of the session, which was initiated in the Senate. It still has to clear our Appropriations Committee, so it won’t be voted on by the House until near the end of the week. That would only leave a week for the Senate to assess our changes, push back, negotiate, and then move an agreement through both House and Senate, which would not be possible without suspending our ordinary rules and expediting the process.
The hospital association opposes the bill, fearing that cost-containment efforts will force cuts in services, but they testified that our version is better than the Senate’s. The real focus of the bill is how to ensure the sustainability of our rural hospitals. According to media accounts, the Senate does not like our version, which takes a more thoughtful and inclusive route to the next phase of health care payment reform and the negotiations with the federal government necessary to achieve them.
***
Intra-House Disputes
When one party has control, disputes between committees never reach the surface publicly as a debate on the House floor would; the House Speaker will resolve it in advance. I can’t predict what will happen with my committee’s bill protecting patient genetic information.
The issue is whether life insurance companies can access patient tests for genetic markers which do not result in a diagnosis but may indicate an increase in risk for a disease. We placed health care as the priority to encourage testing and preventive measures, passing a bill that blocks life insurer access. The Commerce Committee, however, is worried about an impact on the health of life insurance companies. Right now, it doesn’t look as though there is a compromise available, so whether our bill makes the light of day may well be decided in the Speaker’s office.
***
A Brilliant Opportunity
Amidst all the angst over ways to help reduce carbon emissions, there is one easy place where we could all step up. According to an estimate cited in a bill we passed this week, “if every motor vehicle in Vermont reduced unnecessary idling by just one minute per day, over the course of a year Vermonters would save over 1,000,000 gallons of fuel and over $2 million in fuel costs, and Vermont would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 10,000 metric tons.”
Don’t panic; we didn’t just pass a bill to ban idling… it’s already the law! This is a section of a routine motor vehicle law update bill that simply directs the state to increase public awareness. If you see more public service announcements reminding you that in Vermont, “A person shall not cause or permit operation of the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle for more than five minutes in any 60-minute period while the vehicle is stationary,” that will be why.
***
Legislators Are Special?
We passed two new bills that are problematic, at least in part, for me. One creates a new crime for making threats to an elected official – separate from what the law already says about threating. I think we are flirting with free speech and the right to “petition for redress of grievances.”
Serious threats against anyone are covered under existing law. Yes, I’ve had constituents who may use some hyperbole in expressing anger over legislative actions. But I don’t want to see a chilling effect on political debate based upon some folks who may cross the line and need to act with greater civility.
I think we also really insulted our state’s physicians in our new legislative ethics law. I absolutely agree we needed to set ethics standards; we’re one of the few states without any. But some years back we banned physicians from even accepting a free cup of coffee at conferences being hosted by pharmaceutical companies, lest they be “bought off” by it. We legislators, however, can accept up to $100 without fear that our motives will be impugned.
***
Removing an Exemption
A question has arisen about the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and its applicability to our House proceedings. There have been federal court cases that establish that the independence of the process means that state legislatures are exempt from laws that we have not placed on ourselves. I believe strongly in the importance of this kind of separation of powers, but I also believe strongly in the importance of equality in access to our government for all. I am pushing a proposal in our House Rules Committee to adopt an affirmation that we assert our exemption – followed by setting our own rule that we choose to be governed by the standards of the ADA.
***
The Housing Registry
We seem to be explosively increasing areas of government bureaucracy and the number of state-funded positions this year. That includes six and a half new positions to enforce a new statewide rental safety oversight process that would replace local oversight. One Appropriations Committee member who acknowledged being part of the problem in terms of earlier bills this session voted against this one in his committee saying, “enough is enough.”
It was vetoed last year and once again enough Democrats joined Republicans in opposition that although it did pass, it would not survive a governor’s veto. This year, it was embedded within a bill with major federal funds for grants to help improve rental housing conditions, and those are funds everyone wants to see move forward. So, it will be brinksmanship on the legislature banking on the governor caving in, versus moving the funding to a separate bill and letting the registry bill die.
***
Tough Decisions
One difficult part of voting on bills that require budget investments is our inability to have a big picture in front of us. If we know we cannot have it all – and there is certainly no way government can pay for everything that everyone would like to see it do – how do we identify the priorities? It comes down to the big budget in the end, but that is made up of many of the components we vote on separately as the initiatives come before us. If you vote for each of the individual bills as being good, legitimate initiatives, it wouldn’t be fair to turn around in the end and say, “That has added too much and I’m voting against the budget.”
And thus, the dilemma of the proposal for universal school meals. Despite the appearance of simply “helping the rich” since poor kids already get free meals, there are legitimate reasons for it. A large number of eligible (hungry) kids don’t get meals for a myriad of reasons, including the fact that some struggling families are overwhelmed even just in trying to fill out complex paperwork.
The feds have paid for universal meals for two years under COVID. The current proposal would extend that for a year at a cost of $30 million paid for with “extra” money in the state’s Education Fund, for further review for a funding (tax) source next year. “Extra” money actually means that there is a surplus ($90 million) because last year the tax rate raised more money than we predicted to be needed for school budgets. It’s your money being proposed for various uses over and above last year’s education costs.
There are other demands for it. Most proposals include returning some to taxpayers. There are also school needs to address chemical contaminants and deferred maintenance. Which take priority? Where do we get the biggest bang for the buck in helping those most in need?
A big concern I have regarding the current bill as it heads to the floor for Tuesday is that it includes five permanent positions in the Agency of Education for implementation, including for creating a universal income declaration form. Permanent positions don’t sound like a one-year extension. And a universal declaration form? Will that require every family to make this disclosure – even if they didn’t ask for or want free meals?
So, I’m still hesitant and waiting to hear the full floor debate.
***
Your Voices
I’ve heard from constituents on the school meals issue. How does that impact a decision on a bill? It does, in part – and by different degrees. Individual, thoughtful letters that add insights matter a lot. Petition-type communications, less so. All of these reflect serious interest by a few people but not a public referendum. We have a representative democracy, not a direct one. That means you elect your representative based on what they stand for in a broad context; hopefully I act in ways that are consistent with that and if I don’t, you do not re-elect me.
Ultimately, I need to vote based on the values I’ve expressed, not based upon limited specific constituent input on individual bills. I do listen. The impact is greater when I am more on the fence. That’s the case here – so you still have until Tuesday to share more thoughts.
***
All my past updates are available on my blog at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com. Please contact me or Ken Goslant at any time with comments or input at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. It is an honor to represent you.
No comments:
Post a Comment