 Hello again, Guy Page, Vermont State House Headliners. Want to give another big thanks to Zach Zorn and everyone else here at ORCA doing a great professional job with this new State House Headliners and the extremely new producer and host. That's me, Guy Page. I live in Berlin. I publish Vermont State House Headliners, which is a almost now daily blog on Vermont State Government and policy and what's going on in the State House. If you'd like to receive it directly, you can email me at pagecommunications4vtatgmail.com. And that's the number for vtatgmail.com. So the first few shows I've been talking about, newly introduced bills. And if you've got to think of a bill as sort of like those pictures of the millions and millions of tiny baby sea turtles. And they all come out of their eggs. That's when they're introduced. The bills are introduced. And right away, they're being picked off by seagulls and crabs and all sorts of things. And very few actually make it into the water. And even once they get into the water, there's still plenty of predators there who are ready to go get them. Bills in the legislature are sort of like those baby sea turtles. And the bills I'm going to be talking about today are the ones that have actually made it into the water. They passed the first big test. They've been taking up in a committee, in a House or Senate committee, which means, especially this time of year, means there's someone who's a decision maker who really wants to hear more about this bill. So I will start with Proposition 5 in the Vermont Senate will be discussed Thursday at 10.15 in Senate Health and Welfare. And today is Tuesday, September 26. So by the time you see this, probably know it may have already passed. Anyway, right now it will be discussed Thursday, 10.15 AM in the Vermont Senate Health and Welfare Committee. Proposition 5, Declaration of Rights, Right to Personal Reproductive Liberty. What this is is the beginning of a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right to abortion into the Vermont Constitution. It has four Senators, Senators Tim Ash, Chittenden County, Becca Bellint of Wyndham County, Senator Virginia Lyons, Chittenden County, and Senator Richard Sears, Bennington County. I'm going to quote from Proposal Number 5 about what it's really all about. Chapter 1, Article 1 declares, quote, that all persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights. Here they're quoting from the Vermont Constitution. Chapter 1, Article 7 states, the government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people. So the writers of Prop 5 go on to say, the core value reflected in Article 7 is that all people should be afforded all the benefits and protections bestowed by the government and that the government should not confer special advantages upon the privileged. This amendment would assert the principles of equality and personal liberty reflected in Articles 1 and 7 and ensure that government does not create or perpetuate the legal, social, or economic inferiority of any class of people. That's the rationale used by the Proposal Number 5 supporters to enshrine abortion into our state constitution. Now, of course, there are also those who believe that a viable fetus with a separate DNA is a human life distinct from its mother. And they would say that this amendment does create and perpetuate the worst kind of legal inferiority by making these viable fetuses non-persons whose lives can be ended without legal recourse. For them, this amendment is not inclusive. In fact, it is highly exclusive. After it emerges from Senate health and welfare, assuming that it does, that it's passed out there, the amendment must be approved by the Senate and by the House. And then it needs to be voted on by all Vermonters in a statewide vote. It can become part of the Constitution as soon as November 2022, given all the hoops that the framers of the Vermont Constitution created for people who would amend it to jump through. There is intentionally a rather long and lengthy process for changing our constitution. The idea is it should not just be done on a whim or when any one group is in particular power, it should be a process over several years and over several legislatures. So the first step is the discussion in a committee and that will be happening on Thursday. I expect Vermonters will become very familiar with the term Prop 5 over the next few years. Also in the Senate, which is discussed in Senate judiciary today, should be discussed again on Friday, something called S37 Medical Monitoring. And this is not about X-ray machines or diabetes blood testers or anything like that. What S37 would do is hold anyone who releases a toxic substance liable for any harm resulting from the release. It's sponsored by two Bennington County senators whose intent is to prevent future toxic releases like the PFOA water contamination in Bennington. Now, it's critics say that, as written, it could also make legally liable, say, a hairdresser or a cosmetologist who uses a chemical that is later found to be carcinogenic and that person who had their hair done and who contracted cancer and believes that it was from this chemical could then sue and recover damages from the beautician. Circumstances like that, that's certainly not the intent for something like that. But the critics are saying, actually, you've really got to interpret a law the way it's written, not what the actual supposed intent was. So there's a concern. Another concern is, say you have a gas station, could be liable for, quote unquote, releasing a toxic substance if someone gets sick from breathing gasoline fumes while pumping gas because they've released a toxic substance, the fumes of the gasoline. Not surprisingly, business groups are worried about the unintended consequences of this bill that seem likely to go to the full Senate for approval very soon. And then it will be on to the House. So when bills are being considered, sometimes people bring up these unintended consequences and sometimes they're addressed and taken seriously and sometimes they're not. And we will see what happens with S37. So those are two Senate bills that are in committee, which means, again, they've made it into the water. They're little turtles that have made it into the water and still have a ways to go. Still have some predators that could pick them off. But they've made it quite a ways. Now over in the House, there are bills coming up this week that are also in committee. They've made it off the wall and into the committee discussions. The first one is a proposed study, H182, to convert prisons into mental health clinics. H182 now in corrections to the committee. This was introduced by Burlington progressive Brian Sena. Quote, it is the intent of the General Assembly to improve treatment in the state correction system by reframing crime as a public health issue. By reframing crime as a public health issue. That's what this study would be looking at. It goes on to say, the reformed system should be rehabilitative in nature and provide opportunities for inmates to participate in the creation of long-term treatment for mental and physical health and recovery. This report is due January 15, 2020, about a year from now. I think we can anticipate a busy summer study committee on this one. Three things that it must address, among many. One is the social construction of crime. How does crime happen? What's going on in society that it's happening? Number two, the causes of crime. Number three, how to reframe crime as a public health issue. We're not really used to thinking of most crime as being a public health issue. And the idea behind this study is, let's look at it this way. It should, nothing else, should be very interesting. And we will see where it goes, and we will keep you informed on where it goes. So over in the house also, there's the paid family leave bill. And this bill, H107, will be discussed Thursday in the Ways and Means Committee. Ways and Means is the committee that decides which taxes get raised and which ones don't. And this one, this one would raise a lot of taxes. An estimated $107 million a year by the time it really gets rolling would go to give all employees paid family leave so that if a family member is sick, if there's something special they need to pay attention to, they would be paying into. And employers would be paying into a rather large fund where for several weeks a year they could leave work, still be paid, and take care of whatever their family issue is. The supporters of this say this is a truly family-friendly thing. It allows people to, in the long run, save money by being able to take care of loved ones and not needing to hire professional help for this. And critics of it say, well, hold on a minute. $107 million a year, that's a lot. That's a lot of money coming out of Vermonters paychecks. And what would that do to the economy? What would that do to Vermonters' ability to pay their other bills? The question is, is the amount being taken out of the paycheck, does that justify the service that it provides? Because most people in Vermont, they would like some sort of family leave. The question is, is it worth paying that much for? So again, that's a bill that is just going into a committee, is likely to be voted on by that committee, ways and means, one way or the other. And we'll then proceed on to the next stop, which could be another committee. It could be on to the House floor. We will see. And right here in Montpelier, a not too long ago city meeting held a vote, should we allow non-citizens in Montpelier to vote in city elections? That's not a question of being able to vote in state elections, being able to vote for governor. It's certainly not a question of being able to vote for president or US senator or Congress, but to vote on who gets elected to the school board perhaps, to the city council, who the next city clerk is, voting on the budget, all city municipal elections. And the way the Vermont Constitution is set up is that if a city wants to change its charter, essentially its constitution, they need the approval of the legislature. The legislature is like the final ruling body over the towns and cities and their charters, their constitutions. So this has been brought to the legislature. And Wednesday, the government operations committee will be taking a look at this question. Should we allow Montpelier to allow non-citizen voting? A lot of other charter changes are looked at rather quickly and passed through. This one, I think, will be getting a lot of attention. We'll see. And certainly, I know that responses I've been getting on some stories I've written is what? What do you mean non-citizen voting? And a lot of people don't understand that this is just talking about municipal, but there's also the concern that, all right, we start with municipal. Will there be an effort to slippery slope this, to move this on to other elections? At some point in some world, very different from the one we grew up in, perhaps they would be having non-citizens voting in all elections. That's sort of like the slippery slope worry that I've heard people expressing. I'm not saying I really, I don't see or hear that in the legislature. And I'm there every day. It's not like I see that coming. But who knows? Something to keep our eyes on. Another bill coming before the Vermont legislature, the bill is would repeal the statute of limitations on sexual abuse. Most crimes have a statute of limitations, which is if you haven't been charged in a certain amount of years, even once new evidence comes to light or perhaps someone would like to bring charges, they think you're guilty of something, you can't. Because the statute of limitations, that is, the 5, 10, 15 years or whatever it is, has expired. Some crimes have no statute of limitations, murder, for example, famously has no statute of limitations. And what this bill going into judiciary would do would say that sex abuse also would have no statute of limitations. The I think some of the reasoning behind this is there has been a lot of coming out with sex abuse scandals of children in orphanages, of young children, that only now 30, 40, 50 years later are they coming to light. And on behalf of these victims, this legislation would repeal that statute of limitations so that, indeed, the perpetrators can be charged. And if found guilty, convicted. The final bill before us right now is coming out on Wednesday in the House Natural Resources Committee. And that is the plastic straw ban. And this would be a ban on, for example, the use and sale of plastic straws in a restaurant that we'd be looking at only paper straws. This is one of several plastic bans or plastic limitations. There's another bill that would include one-time plastic containers of food that would include that in the bottle bill, that you bring that to the beverage redemption center. You bring your plastic container, say, for that you used at a sandwich at Cumbies. It was in a clear plastic, a recyclable plastic. Well, you bring that. And that would be redeemable is that idea. There's also a proposed ban on plastic polystyrene flotation devices, big sort of bumpers that go along the side of a dock or of a car, of a boat, sorry. And the idea behind that is that this plastic will chip off, will break, and will end up floating in the water. And behind all of this is this emerging concern for plastic as a, generally speaking, very, very slow, really non-biodegradable, man-made pollutant that once it gets into the water stream can be toxic and dangerous in any number of ways. Critics of these bills say that really in the United States, it's not that much of a problem. We do a pretty good job with our waste disposal, with our landfills, and that the real heavy polluters are, for example, the Chinese, who there's a lot of dumping at sea of their plastics. So that really is a question. Should the US and should Vermont states be doing this? And they're saying, yes. First of all, it is pollution. And second, it would be good to kind of lead the way on this. And speaking of the environment, the Act 250 bill that was introduced several weeks ago, the planned revision of Act 250 has been getting a lot of attention from the Natural Resources Committee. In fact, almost every day, they spend some time going over this very thorough, exhaustive bill. As you may know, in 1970, the legislature passed the original Act 250, it was the state's landmark property rights and planning and development bill. And law, really, once it was passed into law and signed by Governor Dean C. Davis. And this bill, they decided a couple years ago, needs to be revisited. It's been 50 years. No one had ever even heard of climate change back then in 1970. Time to revisit it. And over the winter and through the summer, there was a lot of meeting, a lot of studying done. Several things came out of this. Several proposals came out of it. One is trying to get as much carbon neutrality as possible, that if a developer or a builder or a homeowner emits carbon, they have to find some way to offset that. Those ways, all of them being rather expensive. And also the idea of discouraging development in the countryside and moving it into the city and town centers. Governor Scott has introduced a similar bill that is nowhere nearly as restrictive in some ways, but does perhaps also encourage moving from the towns into the cities. Moving from the countryside into the towns and cities. So that bill is going to take a long time. It will be at least a two-year process. It probably will not emerge from the house this year. They're going over it with a fine-tooth comb. And I must say, they're giving it their due diligence. It is Act 250 has a huge consequence on how we live our lives and where we live, and how much it costs to live, and how much we pollute, and where we can build. Act 250 for 50 years has been a big player in this and could potentially be upscaled quite a bit if a lot of these changes go through. So it's something we'll be watching. Well, OK, that is pretty much it now for statehouse headliners. I do encourage you to check out our latest publication. You can go to Facebook and Google Page Communications and find it there. You can go to the Vermont Daily Chronicle, Google Vermont Daily Chronicle, and you will see every article that we have published. And now it's, I have no idea how many. It's probably close to 100 now. We've been publishing steadily since spring, almost every day. And this has become a growing thing now. So we encourage you to check out statehouse headliners published at vermontdailychronicle.com. That's all for now. I'll be back next week. Guy Page, Vermont Statehouse Headliners. Goodbye.