The legislative process is both
deliberate and deliberative. Bills do not get passed without a
considerable amount of testimony from stakeholders on every side of
an issue and discussion among the members of a committee comprised of
Republicans, Democrats, Progressives, and Independents. Bills that
are introduced are often modified significantly by the time they are
voted out of committee and sent to the floor for consideration by the
entire body of either the House or the Senate. Once the bill gets to
the other chamber, the process is repeated. So, a lot of thought goes
into a bill to ensure that it is a solid piece of legislation that
accomplishes the purpose intended.
That is why, after hearing the rhetoric
that he wants to protect the most vulnerable Vermonters and improve
affordability, it is disappointing that the Governor has decided to
veto four bills that address those issues. Two of the bills, S.103
and S.197, would protect Vermonters from misuse of toxic chemicals
and hazardous materials. The first would create an Interagency
Committee on Chemical Management to evaluate chemical inventories in
the state, identify potential risks to human health and the
environment, and propose measures to address those risks. It also
would require testing for potability of new water sources used for
human consumption. The second would require businesses responsible
for exposing employees or the public to toxic materials through
intentional or unintentional releases to cover the cost of medical
monitoring of exposed individuals. The PFOA contamination of the
public water supply in the Bennington area demonstrates the need for
such legislation to protect the health of Vermonters.
Two other vetoed bills, S.40 and H.196,
directly address affordability concerns for low and middle income
Vermonters. S.40, the minimum wage bill, would gradually increase the
minimum wage in Vermont to $15 per hour over six years. This bill
would assist more than 25,000 minimum wage adult, non-farm workers
who often have to work more than one job to make ends meet. It would
also have the benefit of putting more money into the local economy at
the same time. The other bill, H.196, is the paid family leave bill.
This bill would create a statewide insurance program that would
allow an employee to take up to 12 weeks to care for a child or other
family member during critical times of need, including childbirth,
prolonged illness, and emergency situations. The program would pay
70% of the employee's average weekly wage and would be financed
entirely by a 0.137 percent tax on employee wages. For a full-time,
minimum wage worker, this would be 58 cents per week, or about 5.5
cents per week for every dollar per hour. This is a crucial benefit
that smaller employers often cannot afford to provide but guarantees
that some income is available during times of crisis or family
necessity. If we want to make Vermont attractive for working
families, raising the minimum wage and addressing flexibility for
families to take care of each other is necessary.
As always, I can be reached by phone
(802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).
