"Scribblings" - An Occasional Newsletter from the Legislature 
By Rep. Thomas F. Koch, Barre Town

I have long been opposed to primary enforcement of our seat belt law and have voted against it in the past. This week the issue came up again in the context of a bill to pay for public transit programs.

The bill originally contained a proposal for a "gas guzzler" tax--$150 (or so, pick your number) on the purchase of any passenger vehicle that gets less than 20 miles per gallon. That proposal was widely unpopular, so the committee began to look around for another source of funds. Since the federal government will pay Vermont $3.7 million (once, not every year) for adopting a primary enforcement law, a number of representatives put forward the primary enforcement amendment.

As a fiscal matter, the amendment makes little sense. We have millions and millions of dollars of unfunded needs, and the payment of $3.7 million on a one-time basis does not come close to solving the problem. At most, it would partially fund the need this year and postpone the rest of the problem until next year. The real question was whether primary enforcement is good public policy, financial questions aside.

My opposition to primary enforcement has largely been based on my reluctance to have our scarce law enforcement resources devoted to a minor offense that is difficult to observe from outside the vehicle. I don’t want police officers making a habit of driving down the road peering into vehicles just to see if there is a shoulder strap over a driver or passenger’s shoulder.

From proponents of the amendment, we heard persuasive statistics that states with primary enforcement laws have a significantly higher percentage of people using seat belts than states without such laws. We heard many facts concerning the number of lives that have been saved by seat belts and the cost of medical care for persons injured in motor vehicle accidents, costs which could have been substantially avoided by wearing seat belts. Many of these costs are paid by Medicaid or other taxpayer-funded programs. We heard arguments that it makes no sense to have a law on the books that goes largely unenforced. And we heard personal testimonies from representatives who have had experience with unused seat belts, especially from Rep. Harry Chen, an emergency room physician who has pronounced a long list of people dead because they disobeyed the law and chose not to wear their seat belts.

As the debate progressed, I realized that my opposition was based on fears rather than facts, and as I listened to the arguments, my opposition became more and more untenable. Although I had begun the debate with every intention of voting against the amendment, I decided that it was one of those instances where I needed to change my position as a result of listening to facts and arguments.

I have written several time in "Scribblings" about the need for legitimate debate, and its purpose of making the arguments, getting the facts out, and changing minds. I guess I should not be surprised that sometimes my mind is the one that gets changed.

Talk about changing minds. All this year, Senate President Pro-Tem Peter Shumlin and Speaker Gaye Symington have resisted the effort to bring before their respective houses a resolution advocating the impeachment of President Bush.

This week, about 150 supporters of impeachment descended on the statehouse to demand that the legislature pass a resolution asking Congress to institute impeachment proceedings against the President. Of course, we don’t like the Vice President either, so let’s impeach him at the same time. If all that is successful, we could have President Pelosi! (Now there’s a thought to make one wake up and pay attention!)

Shumlin and Symington stood up to a nearly ugly crowd, standing their ground, and properly responding that legitimate consideration of an impeachment resolution would consume an inordinate amount of time in (we hope!) the last few weeks of the legislative session. That was Tuesday.

Friday morning, Senator Shumlin introduced a Senate Resolution (meaning it expresses the thoughts of the Senate only and does not have to be sent to the House for further action) asking Congress to commence impeachment proceedings against the President and Vice President. Never mind the fact that impeachment is not a substitute for election and that there is absolutely no evidence that either the President or the Vice President has committed an impeachable offense—defined in the Constitution as "high crimes and misdemeanors." In this era of hatred, all that is necessary for some people to demand impeachment is either that we disagree with a public official’s policies, or we just don’t like the guy.

What changed between Tuesday and Friday? Politics. On Tuesday, the people gathered to demand passage of an impeachment resolution made it clear that they were disappointed with Democrats for not taking the action they demanded, and disappointed with Peter Shumlin in particular. They made it clear that their votes could go somewhere other than to Democrats in the next election. Since Windham County is the hotbed of the impeachment movement, and Peter Shumlin is elected by the voters of Windham County, the dynamics changed.

In the normal course of events, when a controversial resolution is introduced in the Senate, it is referred to a committee. But Friday morning, Lt. Gov. Dubie, who has made it clear that this resolution would have been referred to the Judiciary Committee if he had been presiding, was out of state, and the presiding officer put the resolution before the Senate for an immediate vote. Furthermore, there was no debate! Not a single senator stood to debate this resolution! Do you detect the odor of week-old fish? Frankly, the whole thing stinks.

All Republicans present voted against the resolution, though I am disappointed that none of them moved to commit the resolution to a committee, and none of them rose to speak against the resolution. All of the Democrats except three voted in favor. And three of the more conservative Democrats were absent. Coincidence? Doubtful.

News reports indicate that several Representatives intend to introduce an identical resolution in the House this coming week. To her credit, Speaker Symington has said that she would refer any such resolution to a committee, which, presumably, has real business to attend to and will not have time to act on the resolution. Let me assure you, however, that if a resolution such as this comes up for action in the House, it will not go without being debated.

As opposed to the hatred and acrimony that seems to pervade Vermont political discourse these days—just read the letters to the editor any day of the week—there is a contrary reaction being demonstrated by the Virginia Tech community. Following the horrible massacre this past Monday, makeshift memorials to the deceased students have been erected on campus. Among those memorials is one for the perpetrator, Seung Hui Cho.

While real forgiveness may—understandably—take time, at least some Virginia Tech students appreciate the fact that this was a truly troubled and ill person, whose family is as grieved as the families of the victims. Had he lived, he would have deserved both punishment and treatment. In death, he deserves our pity and God’s judgment, and his family deserves love and understanding, as do the families of all of the victims.

All of these, together with those who were wounded and are recovering, are in my prayers.