Legislative Report 1/3/2014 - A Legislative Session Preview

While the legislature is out of session from June through December, some members still have work to do as members of oversight committees or of special study committees.  These committees review the work of various departments or agencies of the state or research via hearings certain issues that the legislature will have to deal with in the second half of the legislative term.  Here’s a brief account of some of that work.

Energy Generation Siting Policy Committee

Act 38 of 2013 required the House and Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Energy to meet jointly during adjournment to review the report submitted in April 2013 by the Governor’s Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission.    In two joint hearings held in the fall, the Committees heard from the director of the siting commission, the secretary of the agency of natural resources, the commissioner of the public service department, and over 20 members of the public.  The siting commission’s twenty-eight recommendations fell in three broad categories: (1) planning, (2) improved public process, and (3) greater protections for the environment, agriculture and health in the energy siting process.  Many of the commission’s recommendations sought to improve transparency and efficiency of the Public Service Board, including an improved PSB website, a new case manager position to provide a point of contact with the general public, and a tiered permitting process which would set requirements based on the complexity of a project.  The commission’s planning suggestions focused on the role of regional and municipal planning commissions in energy siting.  And finally, the commission sought greater weight for environmental, agricultural and health considerations in the PSB permitting process.  By unanimous consent, the committees deferred action on the reports to the legislative session.

Lake Shoreland Protection Commission

The Lake Shoreland Protection Commission was created by the 2013 Appropriations Bill (Act 50). The Commission was comprised of the Senate Natural Resources Committee and 5 Representatives from the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources committee. Six public meetings were held in Newport, Fairlee, Bomoseen, Middlebury, North Hero and Burlington, and included collaboration with regional and municipal planning commissions and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.  The creation of the commission was in part due to the passage of H.526 in the House, a bill crafted to establish shoreland protection standards for Vermont lakes and ponds in excess of 10 acres. The Senate needed additional time to collect more input from the public, including lakeshore owners and businesses, and to provide more outreach and education regarding the current health and vitality of Vermont’s lakes. There was also a demonstrated need to summarize current regulations, to investigate the need for additional regulation, and to revisit anti-degradation policies with regard to Lake Champlain.  More than 300 public comments from more than 700 attendees were received, logged and categorized. The final commission report is due to the legislature on January 15th. The draft report and public comments can be found here: https://leg2.vermont.gov/sites/legislature/LSP/default.aspx. Work will continue on this subject in the Senate in this session.

Mental Health Oversight Committee

The Mental Health Oversight Committee’s principal focus was in monitoring the on-going creation of the mental health system of care, which continues to be in crisis.  This system relies on three facilities, Green Mountain Psychiatric Care in Morrisville, Rutland Regional Hospital and the Brattleboro Retreat, to provide “level one care” with other hospitals, Fletcher Allen in particular, providing back up.  Level one care is acute or emergency/crisis care.  The result is occasional long waits for some patients in hospital emergency rooms with a negative cascading effect on the delivery of care throughout the system.

While the Oversight Committee and the Joint Health Care Committee strongly recommend that the State Psychiatric Care Hospital in Berlin opens all 25 beds as soon as possible and no later than July 1, the Administration currently plans to open only 16 beds in the facility when it moves patients currently in the temporary facility in Morrisville at the end of June, resulting in a net gain of one bed.  Until all 25 beds are opened, currently planned for mid-August, the burden on patients and the hospitals will persist.  Ongoing issues within the system include: management of a decentralized system to ensure that seclusion and restraint policies meet state standards; maintaining sufficient facilities and well trained staff and sufficient funding of designated agencies; and returning focus to the needs of children within the mental health system of care. The Committee's report will be released in January.

Vermont Laws Regulating Firearms: Next Steps

This past summer, while driving to my granddaughter’s softball tournament in Connecticut, I had the occasion to drive through Newtown past the Sandy Hook Elementary School. The access to the school was still barricaded, a testament to the terrible crime that took place only nine months before when 20 children and six faculty members were gunned down. It was a stark reminder of what can happen when highly lethal weapons are misused by unstable people and criminals. Last month Gun Sense Vermont invited me to participate in a forum on gun violence in Vermont. Gun Sense Vermont is a statewide organization that promotes gun safety laws that respect the Second Amendment and protect children and communities by keeping guns out of the wrong hands. 

I spoke about existing Vermont laws pertaining to firearms and efforts to enact other sensible regulations designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people who pose a danger to themselves or others. The forum was well attended by both supporters of these efforts and people who advocate for the rights of gun owners. Vermonters have a long and strong tradition of hunting and sport shooting, which are honorable and beneficial sports in which firearms play an essential role. Many families own multiple rifles, shotguns and pistols and use them responsibly. 

However, there is also a dark side to the prevalence of firearms. From the thoughtless misuse that can result in a bystander getting killed by a stray bullet or the killing of other people’s cows and horses, to purposeful murders during domestic or neighbor disputes and the all-too-many suicides by young people who choose a permanent solution to a temporary problem, Vermont is not immune to gun violence. Compared to the rest of the country, gun violence incidents in Vermont may be few—but tell that to someone who lost a loved one due to gun violence under any of those circumstances.

We know that we can never prevent every tragedy from happening, but we have to ask if there is something we can do to reduce the likelihood that they’ll occur. According to the Vermont Agency of Human Services, Vermont’s suicide rate is above the national average, and suicide is the second leading cause of death among Vermonters between the ages of ten and 24—about nine per year on average. Also, since 25 percent of Vermont’s youth suffered serious depression in 2011, this population is at greater risk of attempted suicide.

But it’s not just about the suicide rate. It is easier for criminals to obtain guns in Vermont  than in neighboring states because transfers of firearms between individuals are not controlled, whether the transactions take place privately or at gun shows.  Straw purchases, in which an individual eligible to buy a firearm does so with the intent of providing it to an ineligible person, are also easier in Vermont than in New York or any other New England state except New Hampshire. 

Our goals should be to 
• keep guns out of the hands of known criminals,
• keep guns out of the hands of persons with a history of domestic abuse,
• keep guns out of the hands of persons who, as a result of mental illness, are judged to be a danger to themselves or others and 
• keep guns stored safely to prevent unsupervised access to them by our young people.
 

A need for better control

Early in the 2013 legislative session I joined with several of my colleagues in the Vermont House to co-sponsor bills that would seek to address these goals.

Why is legislation needed?  Let’s look at the laws that currently exist in Title 10 and Title 13 of Vermont Statutes. Title 10 prohibits a person from hunting with a machine gun of any kind or description or an auto-loading rifle with a magazine capacity of more than six cartridges. 
Title 13 prohibits possessing firearms on school property or in courthouses as well as selling or providing firearms to individuals under the age of 16 by anyone other than a parent or guardian. Nor can anyone under the age of 16 possess a handgun without the consent of a parent or guardian. Furthermore, Title 13 subjects the purchase of firearms by residents and non-residents to the provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. 

So, other than restrictions on persons younger than 16, Vermont law does not regulate at all who can obtain a firearm in Vermont. This creates a disconnect between Vermont law and federal law. 
The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the sale of firearms to convicted felons, domestic abusers, those determined by a court of law to be a danger to themselves or others as a result of mental illness, and other types of dangerous people; the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 requires a federal background check on anyone purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer. These federal acts are enforced primarily by the federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency, or ATF, and only peripherally by local or state police if they apprehend a prohibited person during the commission of a crime. Furthermore, there is a well-known loophole in the federal law that permits sales between private individuals at gun shows and between residents of the same state without a background check.
 

Next steps

The NRA is fond of saying, “Guns don’t kill people; people do.” Well, I agree! Then let’s plug those loopholes that allow prohibited persons to obtain guns. How do we do that?
First, a background check should be required for every transaction, retail or private, where gun ownership changes hands. Putting this into Vermont law will allow violations to be enforced and can be implemented using local and state police resources. While federal law prohibits private sales between residents of two different states without going through a licensed dealer, this has been extremely difficult to enforce. 

Furthermore, there is no limit to how many firearms can be purchased at one time. This makes it possible for persons from New York, Connecticut or Massachusetts, states with strict gun laws, to come to Vermont to stock up on guns that can then be transported to Boston or New York City or elsewhere and resold privately. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has stated that 85 percent of weapons recovered from crime scenes in the city are from out-of-state sources.

Second, Vermont law should require that persons who have been determined by an authoritative legal process to be dangerous or incompetent to manage their own affairs due to mental illness, or who have been committed to a mental institution, or who have been found incompetent to stand trial by reason of insanity should be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database.  The same should be required for persons under restraining orders or who have been convicted of domestic violence.

Third, Vermont police should be given explicit authority to enforce any federal firearms laws. This would allow violators to be prosecuted under Vermont law instead of having to refer them to the federal court system. A related issue is what to do with weapons confiscated during commission of a crime. Today, most Vermont police departments do not have adequate or proper storage facilities for confiscated weapons. The State of Vermont should provide for one or more facilities that can be used for this purpose.

Fourth, we have to make it more difficult for teenagers who may be coping with school, friendship, bullying or depression issues from getting their hands on guns and taking their own lives. It should not be considered a burdensome requirement for guns to be stored safely—with trigger locks installed—in homes with children or where children are likely to visit. Most Vermont gun owners are responsible, but we hear all too often of such tragedies.

So, I’m convinced that we need to tighten up regulations on the sale of guns in Vermont and that we can do so without violating the second amendment of the Constitution, without infringing on the time-honored traditions of hunting and sport shooting, and in a way that will reduce the incidence of gun violence in Vermont.  Any legislation that has been or will be proposed will be thoroughly discussed by the appropriate committees in the Legislature. All sides will have the opportunity to provide input before a decision is made. We should not, however, be afraid to discuss any issue that involves making our communities safer.

Interview with VT Secretary of State Jim Condos

Rep. Mike Yantachka of Charlotte hosted Secretary of State Jim Condos on the Chittenden County Democrats Show on October 7th, 2013.  Condos talked about the responsibilities of his office with respect to elections oversight, the Office of Professional Responsibility which regulates professions, and the state archives.  The discussion also included developments in voter ID laws across the country and voting in Vermont.  A video of the interview can be seen here.

Who are they kidding? Obamacare IS good for America!

Sen. Ted Cruz and the Republicans in Congress keep saying that the majority of Americans don't want Obamacare.  In the states that are working to implement the health care exchanges themselves, people are overwhelmingly for it.  It's in the states whose governors and legislatures rejected Obamacare and let the federal government create the exchanges that support is lacking.  And why not?  If people only hear their leaders bad-mouthing it and spouting misleading and false information about it, no wonder they say they don't like it.
Would someone please tell me how it can be bad for the American people when it will help 30 million more who are uninsured or underinsured obtain health insurance at a reasonable cost?

Legislative Report 9/12/2013 - Navigating the New Vermont Health Insurance Marketplace

Vermont will embark on a new era in health care on October 1, 2013, as the health insurance marketplace, called Vermont Health Connect, opens for enrollment.  Vermont is one of several states that set up its own marketplace under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a.k.a. “Obamacare”.   Vermont Health Connect is designed to make it easier for eligible Vermonters to have access to and choose the level of coverage and cost for their health insurance as well as provide Vermonters access to federal subsidies based on their income level.  Only insurance purchased through Vermont Health Connect is eligible for federal subsidies that can lower premiums, and for many, out-of-pocket expenses.  The Vermont Health Connect website, www.VermontHealthConnect.gov, already has detailed information available.  As implemented in Vermont, Vermont Health Connect will be used by Vermonters purchasing individual or family plans and employers and employees of small businesses.  It is easiest to address these categories separately for clarity. 

Coverage for Individuals and Families

So, who is eligible to participate?  Simply put, any Vermonter who does not have insurance through their employer or through a government program like Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration benefits, or Dr. Dynasaur for children, is eligible.  Even if an employer offers health insurance, but the premiums cost more than 9.5% of the employee’s household income, the employee is eligible to purchase insurance through Vermont Health Connect and receive federal subsidies.  The open enrollment period starts on October 1, 2013, and ends on March 31, 2014.  After the open enrollment period, only “life changes”, such as marriage, loss of job, change in family size, etc., will be acceptable reasons to initiate or change insurance options.

Vermont Health Connect offers a list of approved health insurance options that provide standardized health care coverage at various levels of cost.  The standard plans have four benefit levels:

·         Bronze – 50% payment of covered medical expenses

·         Silver – 60% payment of covered medical expenses

·         Gold – 80% payment of covered medical expenses

·         Platinum – 90% payment of covered medical expenses.

Each level has different deductible and maximum out-of-pocket amounts.  Insurance premiums will vary by insurance provider, amount of deductibles and co-pays, benefit level, and amount of subsidy an individual or family is eligible for.  There are two insurance providers for Vermont, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont and MVP, each of whom offers the same coverage in the standard plans.  In addition to the four standard plans, there are non-standard plans offered by BCBS and MVP as well.  Catastrophic health plans are also available to individuals under 30 years old who meet certain income eligibility standards.

Federal subsidies for the premiums are based on household income and are paid directly to the provider to offset the premiums.  While the estimated subsidy for 2014 is based on the household income shown in the 2012 tax return filed this year, the subsidy will be adjusted when the 2013 tax return is filed; so, those who have had a major change in income can potentially see a change in the amount of the subsidy they are eligible for.  Adjustments for changes in a household’s financial circumstances can be made on a monthly basis.

Besides the health insurance plans, Vermont Health Connect also provides access to dental plans through Delta Dental for both adults, as a supplemental plan, and children, as dental is embedded in all medical plans for those up to 21.  Catastrophic dental care is integrated with the health insurance plans through BCBS and MVP. 

There is help every step of the way for individuals to learn more now and to enroll after October 1^st:

• Online – www.VermontHealthConnect.gov
• Phone – 1-855-899-9600 (toll-free)
• In-person – Use our website or call center to find a Navigator near you.  (Navigators are trained partner organizations or individuals who can guide you through the process.  A list can be found under the tab “Assisters & Partners” at the website.)

Starting in 2014, there is a federal penalty for not carrying health insurance. The penalty will be assessed on tax returns starting in 2014 and increasing each year through 2016.  For 2014 the penalty is the larger of 1% of household income or $95 per individual household member without coverage up to a maximum of $285. 

Small Business Participation

Small businesses, with 50 or fewer full-time employees will offer health insurance through Vermont Health Connect starting in 2014. There is no federal penalty for small businesses that do not offer health insurance to their employees.  Businesses will select a contribution level and the plans available to their employees (either all plans under one carrier or the full range of options).  The employee would then enroll in the plan of their choice through Vermont Health Connect.  If the employer offers health insurance to its employees, however, the employee would not be eligible for a federal insurance subsidy unless the cost to the employee exceeded 9.5% of the employee’s household income. 

Employers are eligible for federal tax credits if

• they have fewer than 25 full-time-equivalent employees (FTEs),
• the average annual wage per FTE is less than $50,000, and
• they contribute at least 50% of the health insurance premium per FTE. 

While there is no federal penalty for small employers that do not offer health insurance, the Vermont Employer Assessment remains.  This Vermont penalty is $40/month/employee for the 5th through the 49th employee.  (The first 4 employees are exempt.)  Therefore, each employer should analyze the effect on both their business bottom line and their employees before making a decision on whether or not to offer health insurance. The Small Employer Estimator, available now on www.VermontHealthConnect.gov, is designed to help employers with health coverage decision-making for 2014.

 

Employers who choose to enroll must select their coverage options by October 1st; employees should then enroll by November 30th.  Additional tools and resources are available specifically for small businesses and can be accessed at www.VermontHealthConnect.gov or by calling 1-855-499-9800 (toll-free).

TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP TRADE PACT

MEDIA RELEASE MAY 20, 2013 CONTACTS:        Maine Rep. Sharon Treat,  207-242-8558 satreat@gmail.com   Iowa Rep. Charles Isenhart 563-557-1261 (in district); 515-281-3221 charles.isenhart@legis.state.ia.us   South Dakota Rep. Frank Kloucek, retired 605-583-4468 fkloucek@hotmail.com     Vermont Rep. Mike Yantachka  802-425-3960  myantachka.dfa@gmail.com ----------------------------------------------------- MORE THAN FIFTY STATE LEGISLATORS VOICE CONCERN ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP TRADE PACT  ------------------------------------------------------    May 20, 2013    WASHINGTON DC -- Today, more than 50 state legislators from 24 states sent a letter to the Acting US Trade Representative, Ambassador Demetrios Marantis, expressing deep concerns about how the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would impact the environment, energy, and natural resources in their states and in other countries in agreement. The letter comes as the US is in the midst of the 17th round of TPP negotiations in Lima, Peru.      In the letter, the state legislators wrote, "While we understand and appreciate that the United States is advocating for an ambitious and legally binding environment chapter of the TPP, we are deeply concerned that other parts of the agreement, including provisions on or related to investment and energy exports, threaten the environment and our responsibility, as legislators, to serve and protect our constituents."     The concerns addressed in the letter include:    1. The need for an ambitious and binding environment chapter of the TPP that protects the environment, natural resources, and U.S. jobs, including a ban on the trade of illegally harvested timber, a ban on trade in illegally taken wildlife, and binding provisions on sustainable fisheries management.   2. Provisions in the TPP allowing investor-state dispute settlement, which would undermine the ability of local elected officials to enact and enforce fair, non-discriminatory rules that protect communities, workers, and the environment.    3. Language in the TPP that would increase exports of liquid natural gas by requiring the Department of Energy (DOE) to approve all US gas exports to TPP countries -- even if exports are not in the best interest of the public -- essentially overriding the DOE's ability to manage natural gas exports so as to protect the interests of communities and the environment.   "The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is NAFTA on steroids.  If provisions allow corporations to sue state and national governments over laws and regulations that negatively impact their profits, it won't matter what laws we pass to protect our citizens and our environment," stated Vermont Rep. Mike Yantachka, who sponsored a resolution on the TPP and the environment which recently was enacted by the Vermont House and Senate (J.R.H. 12; details of the resolution are posted here).    "This is too important and far reaching not to get exactly right. The environmental chapter can't just be the "10 Suggestions".  Binding understandings are necessary to protect the quality of our own, our children's and our grand children's lives," said Maine Representative Ann Peoples.   "Based on legal challenges that have been made under other international agreements, questions could be raised about many other state and federal programs, Iowa Representative Charles Isenhart said. "Food safety laws, country-of-origin meat labeling, government procurement and renewable energy incentive programs could be at stake."    Maine Representative Sharon Treat, Co-chair of the Maine Citizen Trade Advisory Commission, stated: "It is critical that environmental regulations not be undermined by provisions in the TPP that seek to 'harmonize' standards and allow foreign corporations to challenge domestic laws in binding arbitration panels.  State legislators have a particular interest in how the TPP will operate. In our federalist system, U.S. state governments share environmental regulatory authority with the federal government, and must have the flexibility to develop more ambitious environmental policies in the future."   The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade pact currently being negotiated by the United States and 10 other countries across the Pacific Rim. Because the TPP is intended as a "docking agreement," other countries can join over time, and Japan has already announced its intention to join the talks. It is similar to the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, only the scale and scope of the TPP could make its impacts much more severe.  Governments want to conclude this trade pact by October 2013.     Read the full letter, which remains open for additional signatures, here.   #####