Democratic lawmakers are preparing to revive legislation vetoed by Gov. Phil Scott last session that would expand legal remedies for toxic industrial pollution.
The leaders of the House and Senate said during a press conference previewing the session Thursday that they will attempt to override Scott’s veto of the “medical monitoring” legislation, which gives individuals the right to sue companies for the cost of monitoring health issues caused by toxic pollution.
Lawmakers can attempt an override anytime in the same biennium as the veto. The current two-year term began in January.
Scott struck down the bill in June over concerns that it could place an undue burden on the state’s business community by increasing legal exposure and ramping up insurance costs.
Sen. President Pro Tem Tim Ashe, D/P Chittenden, said he hopes to hold an override vote “in the first month or so” of the legislative session, which begins on Jan. 7.
“It would be different if we were in a scenario where the governor had indicated some other version that would be acceptable to the House and Senate and still meet our objectives,” Ashe said of the medical monitoring bill. “But in the absence of that our best action is to proceed with the veto override.”
When the Senate voted on the measure last year, it passed 19-11, meaning Senate leaders would need to flip one vote to successfully reverse the veto. In the House, the bill passed with 100 votes — exactly enough to override the governor.
“We had a hundred votes, which of course is the necessary number, even with a few absences that were in favor,” House Speaker Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, said Thursday. “I think the 100 that we had were pretty firm and pretty passionate.”
In an interview earlier this month, Johnson called the bill “an important piece to hold corporate polluters accountable to basic Vermont health protections.”
Democrats proposed the medical monitoring legislation following the contamination of private wells around Bennington, located near a Teflon coating factory that polluted the area with toxic PFOA chemicals. The pollution was uncovered in 2016.
Scott said he vetoed the medical monitoring bill because it presented “unknown legal and financial risks,” including higher insurance costs and “increased liability” for businesses in the state.
“If Vermont manufacturers and others cannot secure insurance or cover claims, then our economy will weaken, jobs will be lost, tax revenue will decline and, ultimately, all Vermonters lose,” the governor wrote in a letter explaining his decision in June.
Sen. Dick Mazza, D-Grand Isle, who voted against the bill this year, shares the governor’s concerns. He said that unless the bill “dramatically” changed, he would vote against it again.
“I just feel that the industries abide by the rules and regulations and they do their very best,” Mazza said. “I’m just trying to protect the industries who are here in Vermont and want to locate here in Vermont.”
The Senate voted twice last year on medical monitoring bill. The first time around, it passed 21-8. Two senators flipped on the second vote: Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex/Orleans, and Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia. Rodgers has said he changed his mind after hearing from more businesses worried about the bill.
Benning was the only Republican to cast a yes vote either time. The other Democrats who voted against the bill were Mazza, Sen. Jane Kitchel, D-Caledonia; Sen. Alice Nitka, D-Windsor; and Sen. Bobby Starr, D-Essex/Orleans.
Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, who sponsored the medical monitoring bill, said last week that if senators couldn’t override Scott’s veto, he would like to work on a version of the bill that the governor could support.
Last year, the governor supported an amendment to the bill proposed by Rep. Scott Beck, R-St. Johnsbury, that set stricter limits for people in an exposed area who could claim medical monitoring.
Sears said that barring a veto, he would want to “see if there’s somewhere between the Beck amendment and what we passed that we could strike an agreement with the administration on.”
