MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - Gov. Phil Scott has vetoed a bill that would give Vermont more power to regulate children’s products containing unsafe chemicals, saying it harms businesses.
The Republican wrote in a veto message Monday that the bill would “jeopardize jobs and make Vermont less competitive for business.” He argued that the bill would not make children any safer compared to the current regulatory system for chemicals, the Burlington Free Press reported.
“We cannot afford to give manufacturers another reason to look elsewhere for their location or expansion needs,” said Scott, who has asked for changes to the bill.
Democratic lawmakers said the governor’s veto is confusing.
“It’s unfortunate that the Governor is prioritizing corporate interests over public health and the safety of Vermont families,” said House Speaker Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero.
Sen. Brian Campion, D-Bennington, a lead sponsor of the bill, said the governor has talked a lot about protecting Vermont’s most vulnerable residents. The veto was an example of Scott “not sticking by his words,” he said.
The bill establishes an easier process for the health commissioner to identify harmful chemicals. It also would base the regulatory standard on the possibility that children “may be exposed” to a harmful chemical instead of the determination that they “will be exposed.”
The Associated Industries of Vermont, which represents manufacturers, had asked for a veto.
“It sort of sends a message of what kind of place Vermont’s going to be when it comes to regulation,” Vice President William Driscoll said of the bill.
The Vermont Public Interest Research Group says the current law has so much “red tape” that it’s difficult for the health commissioner to act.
The Senate must decide if it will follow Scott’s request.
“We’re still trying to understand the why of the veto before we decide whether we’d have an override vote or try to work through small differences,” Senate President Pro Tem Tim Ashe said Tuesday. “It would have been nice, maybe, to have a better appreciation of the administration position long ago rather than at this point.”
___
Information from: The Burlington Free Press, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com
Please read our comment policy before commenting.