There are no issues more moving than those tied to deeply held personal values.  The debate on spending and taxes is decidedly different from debate as personal as our wishes on how our lives draw to a close.  Last week, the House passed S.77, an act relating to patient choices and control at end of life.  As of this writing on Monday, May 6th, it is in the Senate where its future lies in the hands of one or two senators and the use of senate rules to either move it into law or stop action.  My hope is that it has moved forward.

 Modern medicine is good at staving off death with aggressive interventions—and not always so good at listening to the patient and knowing when to focus, instead, on improving the days that terminal patients have left.  This does seem to be improving with advances in palliative and hospice care, and I was proud to vote for increasing access to these services in 2010.  Without hospice and palliative care in place, any discussion on S.77 would have been premature.

I have long been a supporter of “Death with Dignity” and have listened to many people, both for and against this end of life option.  Everyone knows someone who has died and most of us have stories that describe peaceful deaths as well as tortured ones; families brought together and families torn apart.  While death itself is no surprise, the timing and uncertainty around it is, requiring us to make conscious our deeply held moral, cultural and religious values.  This was evident in the Vermont House of Representatives last week, as many legislators made these views explicit either through personal stories or their interpretation of law, ethics and government’s role.

During debate last week, arguments for and against were often indistinguishable, particularly when discussing the role of government. “Death should be between the physician, the patient and his or her God,” stated one against the bill, but this seemed to resonate just as well with the other side.  One who voted against the bill reasoned “government should not insert itself in such decisions,” which was precisely the reason those in favor said the bill was needed – to ensure a patient’s autonomy in such decisions.

Those in opposition described cases in which a six-month diagnosis proved incorrect, with a patient living months or years beyond the six months.  Yet research shows that not everyone who asks for the medication ends up using it, and most use it when it is clear that they are really in the last days or hours, not months of life.

Several spoke of the “slippery slope,” fearing this final decision could gravitate out of the hands of the patient and into the hands of insurance companies or greedy relatives.  This was precisely why I supported the House version rather than the Senate bill, which only protected the doctor, removing all safeguards to protect the true and voluntary wishes of the patient.

Hospice and palliative care have done wonders to make the end stages of illness more bearable.  For those few who find the suffering unending and their lives over, it seems only decent to allow them to be surrounded by loved ones and use this prescription to drift off in peace.

Tuesday, May 14^th will be my last morning meeting at Bruegger’s.  After that, I can be reached by email, phone, or by appointment:  katewebbvt@gmail.com or 802 233-7798.

Here are updates on two of the approximately 75 out of 700 bills that are actively being considered in the remaining weeks before adjournment.

WIND ENERGY:  The siting of wind projects remains a topic of heated debate in Vermont.  Most everyone seems to agree that developing renewable energy is necessary.  All sides also recognize that the siting of projects is important.  As the topic moves toward implementation and impact, the advocates diverge.  To address this, the Governor convened a siting policy commission.  The Commission was tasked to examine these issues to help inform potential changes to the regulatory and planning process.  A report is due at the end of April.

A bill introduced into the Senate in January started as a three-year moratorium on wind turbine development.  This proved untenable for a number of reasons already presented in the press.  Instead, the committee replaced a moratorium with a study; however it also set a course that got ahead of the work imminently due from the Siting Commission.  In addition, it appeared to require more rigorous standards be applied to wind energy than to energy from coal, nuclear, large hydro, natural gas and other technologies.

This bill is now under review in the House Natural Resources and Energy committee.   They have heard from more than 30 witnesses, including utilities, concerned citizens, scientists, physicians, state agencies, regional planning commissions, the Siting Commission, and many others.  The current iteration of the bill has been reworked to convene a group to meet up to six times between the 2013 and 2014 sessions to examine and consider the Siting Commission’s report. This group will be tasked with coming up with recommendations on how to improve our energy siting process going forward.

DRIVER PRIVILEGE CARDS:  The Senate passed S.38, often referred to as the “migrant driver’s license.”  Although this concern came to the legislature through the Migrant Justice Project, there is actually no mention of migrant workers in the bill.  Passing the Senate on a vote of 27-2, it is now in review in the House Transportation Committee.

The bill authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue operator, junior operator and learner privilege cards in lieu of the full Vermont driver’s license.  The Vermont driver’s license meets the compliance standards in the federal “REAL ID Act,” while the privilege card does not. It is only provides documentation to law officials that a driver has passed the appropriate tests to be able to drive in Vermont.

To be eligible for a privilege card, an applicant must provide reliable proof of identity and Vermont residence.  They must satisfy any other requirements of law such as paying a license fee, passing road and written tests, and prove that they are fit to drive.  The face of the privilege card must indicate that it is not valid for federal identification or official purposes as required in the REAL-ID Act.

As we come to the end of the session, much is still in flux.  Please join Joan Lenes and me at Bruegger’s most Tuesday mornings at 7:30; or by appointment: (802) 233-7798 or katewebbvt@gmail.com.

With the money bills now in the Senate, this seemed a good time to review a few bills you have asked about. The pros and cons of the following have been fairly well presented in the media.  Here is an update on their status:

DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARIJUANA:  This bill does not legalize marijuana, but reduces the consequences and makes them consistent across counties. An offense would be treated much like a traffic ticket – still illegal and subject to a fine similar to speeding, but would not have the life-altering criminal penalties.   It is currently in the House Judiciary Committee and I expect it to be voted out of committee this week.

Should the bill pass as is, adults over the age of 21 possessing up to once ounce of marijuana would face a fine of up to $300.  Those under 21 could have civil penalties waived upon successful completion of the Teen Alcohol Safety Program.  The biggest incentive for teens to complete the program is avoidance of lost driving privileges.  Additional offenses trigger bigger fines and intervention. The bill calls for a task force to report back to the legislature next January as to how to address the issue of driving under the influence.  I expect to vote for this bill.

HEMP:  Hemp is an unusually versatile commodity and specialty crop with significant economic development potential for Vermont. Unfortunately, hemp is still on the federal List of Schedule I Controlled Substances as a “drug or substance having a high potential for abuse.”  As a result, it is illegal to grow hemp in this country. Action is occurring at the federal level to reclassify hemp.  The Vermont Senate passed a bill to initiate a state application and inspection process.  Should this occur, Vermont would be ready to allow farmers to go into production.

GENETIC ENGINEERING, RIGHT TO KNOW LABELING BILL:  As the lead sponsor of this bill, I hope the House will vote this out in May allowing the Senate ample time next year to act on it.  Extensive testimony in the House Agriculture Committee indicated we could win a lawsuit from the biotech industry.  The deeper I go into this issue, the greater my concern that we are losing control over private production of our food with a blatant disregard for emerging health risks and the unknown long-term risks to health and biodiversity.  We all have reason to be very, very concerned.  This bill does not outlaw or restrict this process.  It simply grants us the right to know if our food was produced using genetic engineering.

DEATH WITH DIGNITY:  The bill passed out of the Senate stripped away all of the safety measures, leaving in its place only immunity to doctors prescribing a lethal dose of medication.  House Human Services will begin hearing testimony this week, including a joint hearing with House Judiciary on April 10^th.  A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for the evening of April 16^th in the State House.  I anticipate the original essential requirements and protections to be put back into the bill.

HEALTH CARE:  Preliminary rates for plans in the Vermont Health Connect exchange were released last week. The rates still have to go through the full approval process, but we expect they will be comparable to what we see today. In the Vermont Health Connect exchange, all plans have to offer a standard set of benefits and cost sharing arrangements.  Vermont Health Care Connect is offering a forum on April 29^th, 7-8:30 pm at the Shelburne Town Offices.

Please join Representative Joan Lenes and me most Tuesday mornings at 7:30 at Brueggers.  I am also available by appointment, through email:  katewebbvt@gmail.com or cell phone: 233-7798.

“Grandma Kate,” said my 5½-year-old grandson, “are you making some laws?”

My grandson has become very interested in the environment and his mom has told him about the work I do in the legislature.   He loves to explore the LaPlatte River near his house.  He loves the show Nature on PBS and he and I share a special relationship observing the night sky.  He is also a big fan of “The Lorax,” by Dr. Seuss, in part because his grandfather is a sort of Lorax who “speaks for the trees.”  The narrator of the story is the Onceler, who tells his own sad tale of using up all the resources in a beautiful area resulting in such wanton waste that at the end, there is nothing left but pollution and destruction. The Onceler tells his regretful tale, but also signals that there may be hope.

I told my grandson that, yes, I was working on laws to help lakes and ponds.  He then whispered to me, “I’m making laws too.  And it’s so easy! Now with two of us making laws, the Onceler will have to listen.”

So with the voice of a child, and with the knowledge that we adults have so very many constraints that keep us from doing the right thing by the environment, we bring forth a lake shorelands bill – a compromise between the complex adult world of competing interests, and the truth of the child who knows that we must be stewards of the lakes and ponds, the rivers and streams, the flora and fauna of this beautiful state.

In early February, a bill regarding shoreland protection was sent to the Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources committee on which I serve.  The purpose of this bill was to provide coordinated, scientifically based, site-specific shoreline regulation throughout the state.  But it was fraught with problems.  People were so concerned about the provisions of that bill, the committee decided to drop it completely and started over.

Over eleven drafts, we struck the best balance we could to achieve an 8-1 committee vote addressing the rights of property owners, the desire for local control, and the compelling evidence that we can no longer maintain the status quo. The reformed bill, H.526, is up for debate in the House this week.

Although education, technical support and financial incentives have been in place for years, only 48 municipalities have voluntarily created standards for lakeshore development and removal of vegetation.  Shelburne is one of them.  Should the bill become law, Shoreland regulation in Shelburne and the 47 other communities will remain at the local level.  The remaining 136 lakeshore municipalities will have until January 1, 2015 to set standards that address specific environmental concerns or accept regulation by the state.  State standards are to be in place by January 1, 2015, following a significant period for concerned citizens to weigh in.

Will this bill address all of the varying stressors affecting our lakes?  No, but it does address the damage done at the water’s edge by clearing, covering and paving.  Does this open the gates for the piecemeal standards we wanted to avoid?  Perhaps, but the purpose section of the bill should help reduce this.  Does this open up two building season where people can develop like the Onceler?  That remains a concern but was a concession.  Did property owners get all the rights they feel due as taxpayers?  No they didn’t, but they can still build and develop and have access and views.  They can also weigh in as standards are developed.  They say when no one is happy; perhaps the right balance has been achieved.

Last week, the House debated the Education Property Tax bill. Spirited discussion ensued regarding the value of quality education, the burden on taxpayers and finally the complexity of education funding.  The end result satisfied the middle ground, but not those who wanted a complete overhaul in education funding right away.  We were faced with a choice.  Option 1 offered a bold repeal of Act 60 and 68, with a new “to be determined” funding system in place by 2015.  Option 2 kept current funding in place for now, but required a recommendation for a new plan for 2015 due next year.  I voted for Option 2.

Most all agreed (including the presenter of Option 1) that the Brigham Decision of 1997 was correct: Vermont children should have equal access to education and not be penalized for living in a town with a small tax base.  Most also agreed that there are big questions as to the sustainability of the current system, and struggle to respond to frustrated Vermonters watching yearly increases in spending in the face of yearly declining statewide enrollment.

To clarify, school budgets are determined at the local level.  How we divvy up these costs is determined at the state level.  The anticipated cost of public education is derived from budgets passed by school boards and slated for a vote across the state on Town Meeting Day.  With 90% of the towns reporting, the anticipated 2013-14 budget is calculated at $1.444 billion, up from $1.392 billion last year. This is typically recalculated in April.

Once budgets are determined, the State identifies who pays what based on a complex funding formula. At this time, property taxes will cover approximately two-thirds of this cost.  The State covers the remaining third through General Fund transfers along with various other resources including sales tax, purchase and use tax, lottery and Medicaid transfers.

If we burrow a bit deeper into the Education Property Tax, we see that only one-third of property owners actually pay these taxes based on appraisal.  This is not a simple calculation either, meaning a 5.5% anticipated increase in the education property tax does not necessarily translate into a 5.5% increase in one’s actual bill.  The Shelburne School Board, for example, notes that a property owner in Shelburne with a house appraised at $250,000 probably pays around $3,351 in education taxes this year; and approximately $3,463 next year, a 3% increase.  This functional lack of transparency is one of the ongoing complaints about the current system; however, when determining a tax, what is “fair” and what is “simple” are generally at odds.

The remaining two-thirds of property owners pay based on income or a combination of income and appraisal.  If you pay based on “income sensitivity,” your education property tax will be more closely tied to whether your income went up or down.

I look forward to seeing many of you at the annual supper on Monday, before Town Meeting.

What is the difference between a fee for a driver’s license and a tax on a refrigerator?  Revenue is revenue, right?  Not exactly and as the “Fee Bill” is up for debate on the floor of the House this week, I thought this a good time to address this question.  How does a fee differ from a tax?

A fee is designed to cover the cost of a specific service to be paid by users.  In contrast, a tax is designed to raise general funds to support services and programs for the common good, although the “common good” is often in the eyes of the beholder.   We raise a tax, as our Vermont Constitution says, when it “ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.”

A fee is tied to the cost of regulation or supervision of the service, thus the primary purpose of a fee is not to raise revenues, but to cover the expense of regulation, and although it does not need to be exact, the courts have said it needs to be reasonably related to the cost of providing the service.

Simply put, regulation of the Shelburne Fishing Access, for example, is covered through fees, based on the belief that those who use it should pay for it.  The users of this area, the fishermen and more recently motorboat users, cover this cost through fishing licenses and a portion of boat registration fees.  This is why you could face an irritated fisherman if you are parking there to launch your kayak or iceboat.  They paid a fee for this use.  You didn’t.  Fees fund regulation of a wide variety of services such as the inspection of pesticides applications, nail salons, and restaurants to name a few.

Fees can also be used to help change our negative behavior to solve a problem.  Bottle return fees or electronic waste disposal fees motivate users to reduce trash headed to our burdened landfills.  If this fee dries up, it should be due to the problem going away as well.

In contrast, a tax is added to various transactions for the purpose of raising revenue, which is not necessarily connected to the activity being taxed.  Taxes will be addressed later in the session and will be directly affect our final decisions on spending, and how dollars can be used as a match to maximize federal dollars.  So stay tuned on this account.

Revenue related to the “fee bill” happens this week.  On the docket for 2014 are fees that fund the regulation of certain agricultural activities, professional licensing, corporate and business regulation, current use, crime victim services and restitution, liquor control, and workers compensation to name a few.  A controversial fee to support apiary inspection has been pulled to allow stakeholders more time to work on an acceptable proposal.  Many of these fees have not changed in a decade; however the current bill calls for a slight reduction in liquor fees.  Go figure.

The Governor’s budget is now open to the public for view and comment.  Thus begins the Legislature’s yearly task of evaluating the meaning and implication of the plan the Governor is putting forward, with each of us 180 legislators comparing this to the wishes of the constituents we represent.

The budget reflects the Governor’s values and priorities in how we address current conditions while shaping the future of our state.  Over the coming weeks, the Legislature will carefully consider and test those ideas through a process of investigation and the taking of testimony from experts, advocates and citizens.

Although the Governor, the House and the Senate all hail from the same political party, there still exists an inherent tension between us as designed by our founding fathers.  We are likely to find areas of agreement as well as disagreement and it can appear messy and divisive.  In the end, it is my hope that the deliberative process, our rules of engagement, and the care, effort and thought we invest give the end product strength and validity.

The legislative process begins in this manner: the 4 Republicans and 7 Democrats who make up the House Appropriations Committee have each been assigned specific parts of the budget to evaluate.  For example, the Governor recommends changes in human services, including tightening up the rules for Reach Up and using the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to fund expansion in child care services.  What does this mean?  Who is affected? Does it hurt or help working Vermonters at the edge of poverty?  If this initiative is to move forward, are these the most appropriate funds? And the most subjective of questions, is this fair and to whom?

At the same time, the Ways and Means Committee begins to look at revenue to support our spending by reviewing the recently downgraded revenue forecast, property tax rate, generation of fees, miscellaneous taxes and transportation funding. The Governor has proposed raising the property tax rate by five cents based on school budget projections, for example.  Are there ways to reduce this impact?  The Governor has also proposed to use a lottery type game called “break-open tickets” (a new concept for many of us) to fund Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Are the projections accurate?  Who wins and who loses?

The budget process and documents can be followed on the Joint Fiscal Office website: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/JFO/default.aspx.  At that site you will also see a press release regarding a joint public hearing you can attend at a VIT site on 2/11/13.

THE SESSION BEGINS

The start of the 2013-14 legislative session began quietly with limited pomp and circumstance.  In place of the expensive governor’s inaugural ball, the State House opened modestly to visitors to travel the halls, admire the recent renovations and partake in conversation and Vermont cheeses and desserts.

On Wednesday, House Speaker Shap Smith challenged House members to address complex issues related to education, health care, climate change and infrastructure.  In contrast, the Governor was silent on most of these issues, focusing his entire speech on education to develop a workforce for the future.

As much as I applaud the Governor’s support for education, his specific proposals present us with some provocative challenges, which we will confront over the coming weeks and months.  Our first task is to use our committees of Education, Ways and Means and Human Services to fully explore the details of these proposals and the opportunities they may present.  I would anticipate lively debate and extensive testimony from educators, employers, agencies and advocates to help identify real life impact on the near and long term for Vermont and Vermonters.  In this column, I’ll keep you up to date on these issues as they are discussed.

A variety of summer study committees or reports commissioned in the last biennium are now coming in.  Here are a few issues up for discussion this week:

APPROPRIATIONS:  The committee has begun to review the Budget Adjustment Act (BAA) for the current year.   This is essentially a mid-year correction completed each year to address changes in revenue and expenditure predictions made last May. Although the upward and downward pressures are essentially neutral, there is a troubling upward trend for future budgets coming largely from human services and now also from judiciary.

WAYS AND MEANS:  A summer study committee reported that sales tax revenue for Vermont and nationally has eroded due to changes in purchasing from goods to services and local shops to online.  The committee recommended not increasing sales taxes to include services; exercising significant caution in creating any additional exemptions; pressuring Congress to enable states to collect remote and online sales taxes.

NATURAL RESOURCES and ENERGY: The committee is reviewing a report from the Thermal Efficiency Task Force, helping Vermonters weatherize their homes.  The committee is likely to focus less on electricity and more on thermal energy this year.  Other areas include land use planning and paint stewardship.

FISH, WILDLIFE AND WATER RESOURCES:  How do we prioritize and fund remediation and protection of our water?  A report due this week will identify areas of challenge and 16 different funding options.

TRANSPORTATION:  Three reports are due this week.  The first addresses driving privileges for drivers without social security numbers.  The second analyzes user fees for those using alternative un-taxed fuels.  The third addresses trends and bonding for transportation infrastructure.

Please join Representative Joan Lenes and me on Tuesday mornings at 7:30 at Brueggers.  I am also available by appointment, through email:  katewebbvt@gmail.com or cell phone: 233-7798.  My website is www.katewebbvt.com.

On the 100^th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, civil engineer and Duke professor, Henry Petroski spoke of the intersection of design, failure and learning.   Success does not teach us nearly as much as failure, Petroski notes.  When something is working correctly, it doesn’t teach us much.  Not until something happens to overwhelm it, are the weaknesses revealed.  Such was the case with the Titanic and Tropical Storm Irene.

Thomas Andrews preferred design of the unsinkable Titanic called for bigger bulkheads to handle more challenging situations and more lifeboats. Owner White Star declined.  They wanted more passenger space, and lifeboat numbers were within regulation and besides, more lifeboats would have ruined the view.  Loss of this argument cost Thomas Andrews and 1500 passengers and crew their lives.  It also provided a necessary wake up call changing a trend in steamship design, overhauling maritime and safety regulation and the establishment of the International Ice Petrol. Safety was improved by tragedy.

On August 28, 2011,Tropical Storm Irene touched down in Vermont.  Major floodwaters and debris poured through our riverways and communities affecting 225 cities and towns.   Six lives would be lost. Transportation infrastructure would suffer damage to over 2500 road segments, 530 bridges, 900 culverts and 200 miles of rail.  The Waterbury complex would displace 1500 state employees and require emergency evacuation and relocation of patients at the Vermont State Hospital.  73,000 customers would be without power and 20,000 community water users would be given boil notices.  Hazardous spills from floating fuel tanks would contaminate soils and sediments.   Farmers would lose $10 million in crops and see 20,000 acres flooded, washed away or forever changed.  Over 7200 families would ask for assistance from FEMA.  In the first month, landfills were overwhelmed with nearly 40,000 tons of flood-related waste.

Recovery costs for Irene are likely around $1 billion.  Petroski tells us that conflict between those who design technological systems and those who pay for them are resolved by negotiation – a process that doesn’t guarantee safety.   The scientists at the River Corridors Program (a program I helped to put in statute in 2010) have known all along that we were at risk.  Our 200 years of channel, floodplain and watershed modifications, our historic developmental patterns encroaching on our riverbanks, our tendency to see rivers as static segments vs. dynamic wholes, and our repeated and costly efforts to control these with structural measures have proven to be unsustainable public policy.

Irene helped bring a modicum of political will to the State House this year allowing us to finally update some of this entrenched policy.  Did it go far enough?  No.  But clarifying authority, activity and training as to what you may and may not do in rivers will help.  So will using science to define the size and placement of our bridges and culverts.  It is unlikely that the rivers flowing through downtown Montpelier and Middlebury will ever have access to their floodplains, but identifying critical areas and protection zones upstream will certainly help.  Habitat restoration will promote equilibrium, save infrastructure and support fish and wildlife.  Finally, preventing further development in the floodplain by encouraging buyouts will reduce impact if, no, when this happens again.

As the Titanic disaster spurred development of safer ships, so should Irene spur smarter interaction with Vermont’s waterways.   Finding the political will to develop science-based policy, requiring us to change our behavior and sense of ownership at river’s edge are necessary conditions.  Listen to our scientists.  Rivers and Lake Champlain are quiet this year.  Amnesia has already begun to set in.

As we head toward the closure of this session a flurry of bills are passing back and forth between the House and the Senate with many now in Committees of Conference.  Here is an update on a few of interest:

BUDGET:  By statute, the budget begins with a recommendation from the governor and is first reviewed and developed by the House and then sent to the Senate.  The Senate version made 125 changes and returned it to the House.  To reconcile these differences, the Speaker and Senate Pro Tem appointed a committee of conference.  While many of these changes are technical, others are significantly different.  Among the casualties: a stripped down funding the Working Landscapes bill, rendering it as nothing more than policy with little ability to implement.  The bill also contained a variety of amendments unrelated to the budget such as the right for childcare workers to unionize, and a direction to the Public Service Board to refund money to ratepayers should the CVPS-GMP merger proceed.

GMO LABELING:  In February, I introduced the “Vermont Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.”  If passed, this bill would require food producers to label foods produced through genetic engineering and genetically engineered foods labeled as “natural” would be misbranded.  We have received an outpouring of support from around the state and the country. The biotech industry testified that as soon as such a bill became law, they would proceed with a lawsuit stating that the state violated the federal pre-emption food labeling law.  Although many are still smarting from the rBST lawsuit several years ago, and recent memory of the Vermont Yankee suit, we also have compelling testimony that we could prevail.   We are moving forward to build a case that the state had a “legitimate interest” in such labeling – a direction that is more likely to hold up to this inevitable suit.  Expect to see this brought forward again next year.

CVPS/GMP MERGER: The CVPS “payback to ratepayers” votes last week revolved around two points: (1) the widely held opinion that the $21 million “windfall sharing mechanism” should be in the form of a direct payback to CVPS ratepayers, and (2) the principle that the Legislature should not interfere in the equivalent of a court proceeding by directing the Public Service Board what to do.  I voted not to interfere and do not see these two positions as mutually exclusive. The PSB may very well decide that the funds should be directly paid back as they continue through their deliberation process.  My vote to leave the decision with the PSB reflected a serious concern that the Legislature should not interfere in a formal process that has already involved months of technical hearings, formal briefs, and oral arguments. Last-minute interference on the part of the Legislature would set a destabilizing precedent in a regulatory process that has been in place since 1962.  The PSB is due to make a decision in June.

HEALTH CARE:  Committees of conference are currently working to reconcile difference between the House and Senate-passed versions of the vaccinations bill and the health care exchange bill.   The House conferees have been firm in supporting increasing immunization rates through education and outreach, but will not consider an outright repeal of the philosophical exemption.  Proposals bouncing around are mechanisms to allow the commissioner of health to eliminate this exemption when rates fall below 90% for certain immunizations.  The exchange bill conference is looking to reconcile a variety of difference related to mental health oversight, malpractice, insurance brokers among others.

I will continue to work on issues while the legislature is out of session.   The best way to get in touch:  klwebb22@mac.com or 802 233 7798.