The committee passed H.196 on a 6-5 vote. The bill now moves to the House floor, where it could get a full vote as early as Monday.
H.196 has been significantly scaled back from a version introduced in February. That bill would have implemented a 0.93 percent payroll tax, split evenly between employers and workers.
The House Appropriations Committee made amendments but approved most of the language in the version that made it through the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee on April 20. That version relies on a 0.141 percent payroll tax solely on the employee.
The original bill would have given workers their full pay for 12 weeks of parental leave, family leave or disability leave. The new version would fund six weeks of parental or family leave, but not disability leave.
The House Appropriations changes would require the state to maintain a reserve fund for the program and require the executive branch to submit reports about the family leave program to the Legislature.
Rep. Diane Lanpher, D-Vergennes, voted in favor of the bill. She said she heard on the campaign trail from families that were struggling and needed help, and this bill would provide it.
Lanpher also said the bill would help Vermont compete for workers with New York, which also has a paid family leave program. That program is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1.
“It’s a pretty big step for us to take, but yet it’s pared way down than the way it was introduced and the way it came out of” the House General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee, Lanpher said.
Rep. Kathleen Keenan, D-St. Albans, considers herself a moderate. She said she didn’t support the original bill, but this version is “self-funded, and it’s a way for employees to invest in taking care of their families when they need to.”
Rep. Maureen Dakin, D-Colchester, who calls herself a moderate, voted against the bill. “I don’t want to tax employees,” she said. “The tax thing was a big issue for me.”
Dakin also said the program would require too many employees to set up and administer through the Department of Labor, and that she was concerned about whether the state could set up an information technology system for the program.
She added: “I just didn’t think there was enough experience in the five states that have it for us to really base our assumptions on. If we were the 20th state … that would be different than five.”
