Statehouse Journal: April 23rd to April 26th

Back and Forth

With two weeks left in the session there's a a lot of work left to be done in both the House and the Senate. The target end-of-session is May 10th. By then the State needs a budget for fiscal year 2025 and way to raise the funds needed for that budget. Most of that is in two bills that must be passed by the time the session ends: 

Must Pass Bills

And then there's all the other bills that have been working their way through the legislative process. The State will not cease to function if they do not pass, but many consider them crucial.

Other Bills

It's hard to keep track of what is happening to important bills that relate to housing, education policy, health care and public safety. After they leave the House or Senate and are passed over to the "other body" they are inevitably changed. Pieces can be pulled out and inserted in other bills. They can be dropped completely or amended so much that they not recognizable. They can also be passed without funding. 

The end-of-session is usually chaotic, particularly when it is the end of the biennium with elections coming up in November. Votes become even more difficult as a large bill might contain a small portion that is controversial. Legislators, with an eye toward how their votes might be characterized by opponents, have to decide which swords, if any, they want to die upon.

S.18 The Flavored Tobacco Products Ban

This bill caused quite a bit of controversy at the beginning of the session. It eventually passed both the Senate and the House and was then vetoed by the Governor. Because the bill originated in the Senate, they are first to attempt an override of the veto. Rather then take a vote, the bill has been sent to a committee and is stuck there.

Education Funding - The Yield Bill

Over to the Senate

H.887 left the House last Wednesday with a roll-call vote of 101 to 39, along party lines. I voted "yes." Here's how everyone else voted.

There was extensive debate with Republicans saying that there was just more taxes and not enough, or any, cost containment. Democrats touted some measures to ease the immediate tax burden and caution about making big changes to the funding system without more deliberation.

The Big Bill

H.883 left the House on March 29th. The Senate returned it with amendments last week. The House Appropriations committee doesn't like the changes and has called for a committee of conference. Three members of the House and three members of the Senate will now hash  out their differences and come back to the House and Senate with some sort of compromise bill. This is all the usual process.

Here's a summary of the current version of H.883 as proposed by the Senate. In the summary prepared by the Joint Fiscal Office there are both "base" and "one-time" spending. Base spending will be an ongoing expense to the State while one-time spending will be only for this year. You can see significant resources for housing, public health, public safety, and workforce development.

Wildlife Managment

S.258 remains in the House committee on Environment and Energy, but should be  coming to the floor this coming week.

The bill adds two members to the Fish and Wildlife Board. The new members would be appointed by the Legislature. The idea of the bill, and the reason it is controversial, is because it is trying to get away from the State's wildlife policies being slanted toward "consumptive" purposes. Consumptive purposes are hunting and fishing. The bill also outlaws the use of bait and dogs when hunting coyotes

Climate Change Cost Recovery

S.259 is an interesting bill. It came to House Ways & Means last week. There are no taxes or fees in the bill so we weren't sure why it came to our committee, but just the same, we heard some testimony about it. 

I had been stopped in the hallways during the lunch break by a lobbyist supporting the bill, so I knew a little about it. The bill establishes a Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program that will be used to fund projects mitigating the impact of climate change caused by greenhouse gases. Money for the fund will be received from companies that are engaged in the business of extracting fossil fuel or refined crude oil that results in more than one billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. The State will figure out how much damage that entity has caused to the State of Vermont and send them a bill for the cost of mitigation. 

When I first heard about it I said something like, "Yeah, right, and they're going to write Vermont a check for the millions of dollars." Needless to say, I was skeptical and thought it might be just a waste of time.

After we heard testimony about the bill I asked the attorney who drew it up if there was any real chance of Vermont getting any revenue from this. Here's a video of my question and the response.

At the end of the testimony House Ways & Means voted in favor of the bill. It should come to the full house next week.

Next Week:

A lot of the work next week will be in committees of conference as the House and Senate try to find the compromises necessary to get bill back for floor votes.