15 December 2006

Floor action, Dec. 15: HB 52, HB 120, HB 59

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 52 would create a fund in which to dump money to be used for economic development purposes. As its Senate handler Sen. Jody Amedee emphasized, no money that would violate the state’s spending cap would be put into it, it would probably come from the general fund, and it could create many high-paying jobs. Sen. Rob Marionneuax, however, wanted to know if additional money would be required from the state, which Amedee didn’t exactly know, as he thought it could be a billion dollars more the state would have to commit besides this $300 million. Marrioneuax also thought too much trust was being asked of the state with too much uncertainty in its return, and wondered how much the land was really worth.

Sen. Pres. Don Hines said he knew of another project where all sorts of feasibility studies and information had to be provided before the state invested in it. “We ought to be consistent,” he argued, implying the sugar mill he had backed a couple of weeks earlier should have gotten such easy treatment as this proposal seemed to be getting. Amedee confessed he didn’t know a whole lot about the project in terms of what would happen after the state bought the land and prepared it. Sen. Charles Jones pointed out that much information could not be made public because of competitive reasons to get the project for which the bill was designed.

Sen. Walter Boasso proposed an amendment to cap the fund at $300 million and basically would apply only to the project being recruited. It passed without objection.

Marionneaux said despite confidentiality, surely some financial statements could be worked up about the project. He said this giveaway to a foreign firm was inappropriate given that citizens in the state needed assistance and yet the Legislature didn’t seem willing to provide it. He argued that others had to be content with tax credits, so why should this firm merit any additional help? Sen. Chris Ullo said the benefits would be clear enough without exact figures.

Marionneaux then sent up an amendment that said if the plant did not come to the state, the money would be divided up to give pay raises to various groups. Sen. Art Lentini (Senate parliamentarian) pointed out that the multiple purpose of the bill would violate the Constitution, since it is not a general appropriation. Marionneaux said he knew of past bills of this format which had not been ruled unconstitutional, but he said he would not object to dividing the bill. Se. Robert Barham noted that if the amendment went through and it took awhile for the mill to make a decision, then the raises could go through in addition to the site expenditure if the firm decided to come. It ended up being defeated 12-23.

Amedee said he appreciated what Marionneaux had tried to do for state employees, but those measures could be dealt with in the future and even applied retroactively, but this measure had to be dealt with now in order to have any shot at landing the project. The bill passed 31-4.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 120 would provide tax credits to those who had to pay excess insurance assessments to bail out the state insurer. Sen. Ken Hollis wondered how expensive it would be to send out some checks, as some monies will be due to people who do not have income tax liability. Handler Sen. Willie Mount didn’t think the costs would be as high as Hollis had heard, even if it was more complicated because it would have to be calculated on a parish-by-parish basis.

Sen. Gerald Theunissen wanted to know why the “noncompetition factor assessment” was now included, pointing out that the bill now would refund past payments now required by law for those who were insured by the state insurer that they are required to pay, a 10 percent surcharge of the market rate. He said it would be better to tackle that issue in the regular session, not as part of this bill.

Sen. Julie Quinn proposed to get rid of that amendment, saying more time was needed to study that surcharge issue. But the author of the amendment added Sen. Nick Gautreuax said too few companies were writing policies necessitating the existence of the surcharge, so relief should be now and he promised if the amendment passed he would bring the issue back up in regular session. It passed with objection, and the bill passed 35-0.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 59 would extend a $125 tax credit to each qualifying child to any family, regardless of whether a head of household had any income tax liability, and also provides a 2 percent credit on medical expenses, casualty losses, charitable donations, and home mortgage expenses. Barham asked for a ruling about whether the addition of the 2 percent credit would push the bill over $500,000 in impact, requiring referral to the Finance Committee. Pres. Hines ruled against it, saying the Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee had sufficient authority to deal with this matter.

Sen. Robert Adley, who had added the 2 percent credit, pleaded with the Senate to pass it even if they were not fans of other parts of the bill. He said it was like a pay raise for everybody. Sen. Diana Bajoie wondered whether this would disproportionately help people at higher income levels, but Adley said anybody who paid taxes would be helped by this part of the bill. He pointed out that since it was 2 percent, it would provide a direct offset to the payers in the lowest bracket, but only half at the 4 percent bracket, and just a third at the 6 percent level. Hollis pointed out that the language exactly duplicated other bills introduced this session once supported by the governor.

After Adley concluded, Hollis then asked for an adjournment sine die until the regular session (after being corrected in its format by Sen. Cleo Fields). His motion failed 12-22.

Bajoie said she just couldn’t support it, more out of protest with other things she said were being ignored, even with the credit, saying it wasn’t a fair choice and hoped the handler Sen. Lydia Jackson would withdraw it. After a clarifying amendment by Sen. Noble Ellington was adopted without objection, Jackson closed, pointing out they were debating income tax credits appealing to a wide spectrum of taxpayers. Even though some would be going to non-taxpayers, she argued that a boost in sales taxes was supporting the extra revenue forgone, paid by many who don’t pay income taxes. The bill passed 28-6.

DID YOU KNOW:
The House concurred with HB 52 and HB 120. But it then adjourned sine die without making a decision on HB 59, thereby killing it, by a vote of 49-42.

QUOTES OF THE DAY:
I supported your syrup mill.
I wish you were governor.

Hines to Amedee during the HB 52 debate.

THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 120 passed House committee, the House, Senate committee amended, the Senate amended, and the House concurred.

THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 59 passed House committee amended, the House, Senate committee amended, and the Senate amended.

SCORECARD:
I’m going to dispense with this because the above two bills are the only important ones that even made it to the floor of either house. And thus closes the 2006 legislative year.

12 December 2006

Floor action, Dec. 12: HCR 6, HB 59

DID YOU KNOW?
HCR 6 came up again for a vote, in the form of calling it from the calendar, and got slightly more support, 60-37. Rep. Jeff Arnold voted for calling it as opposed to opposing its passage yesterday, while Reps. Billy Montgomery and Joe Toomy, who had voted against it yesterday, were absent. But this still was 10 votes short of the required two-thirds to bust the state’s spending cap.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 59 would provide an income tax credit of $50 for any parent in Louisiana. Author Rep. Yvonne Dorsey asked to increase the credit to $75 while suspending the education tax credit, which was done without objection.

Rep. John LaBruzzo wanted to amend away the most objectionable part of the part, which would not allow money to come back to people who do not pay taxes, and would extend the credit retroactively back three years cumulatively as well as increasing it to $100 per year. Thus, if a tax liability for the preceding three years was at least $300, all would come back to the individual. Dorsey objected, saying it was to help “working” families, without justifying why people who did not pay up to $100 a year in income taxes should get any money from others who do pay taxes in the state. Rep. Juan LaFonta argued disabled veterans would be unable to claim this according to the amendment. Rep. William Daniel IV requested a division of the amendment, for a vote to make for an amendment for $100, and then to only go for those who pay enough income taxes carried forward for three years. That first one failed 44-48, and the second failed 23-71.

Dorsey closed on it, pointing out this kind of earned income tax credit was applied by the federal and state governments in other ways. The bill passed 97-0.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
If you hire a good CPA, you shouldn’t have any income liability.
Rep. Joel Robideuax, who is a CPA who prepares income taxes in part for a living

10 December 2006

Committee and floor action, Dec. 10: HB 121

Bill introductions, referrals, and committee work are happening almost simultaneously in this compressed session:

THE GOOD: HB 120 by Rep. Taylor Townsend would allow a refundable income tax credit for assessment made to homeowners paying special insurance assessments to fund deficits in the state-run insurer.

THE BAD: HB 121 by Townsend would give a $75 per child tax credit but then suspends the $25 credit for educational expenses, which would force the state to give out money to people who do not pay income taxes.

DID YOU KNOW?
The House resumed recessed to allow its Ways and Means Committee to work on HB 120, which passed with objection. Then it went back to business but almost 45 minutes late, bad by even its standards.

No doubt this was to try to gauge support for raising the state’s expenditure limit. It must not have been entirely successful, because when it returned the request, which had passed committee the previous day 13-3, was placed into five separate yet identical resolutions and all shipped to committee. The House then adjourned.

QUOTE OF THE DAY
I just want to say that the Independents are going home.
Rep. Joel Robideuax, the Legislature’s only independent, after leaders of the Democratic Caucus and Republican Delegation announced meetings after adjournment.

09 December 2006

Committee action, Dec. 9: HB 21, HB 30, HB 59, HB 69

DID YOU KNOW?
The biggest issues in front of the House Ways and Means Committee were HB 26, HB 27, and HB 28, and HB 30, all reported favorably by the committee. These bills all addressed new tax credits that represent a partial reversal of their removal three years ago. In essence, the first three are all part of HB 30 but it also would include HB 29 and their author Chairman Rep. Taylor Townsend for whatever reason did not want to move passage on HB 29 as he did with these other bills.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 59 by Rep. Yvonne Dorsey would provide a $50 tax credit per child. Because if a filer’s tax liability was less that the amount eligible they would get a refund despite not paying enough in taxes, or any taxes at all. Rep. Cedric Richmond wanted to increase it to 21 if a child still in school, but averred he would wait until later in the process. It then passed favorably without objection.

DID YOU KNOW
HB 69 by Taylor essentially was a redo of past legislation authored Rep. Billy Montgomery. Ten years ago, it was supposed give tax breaks for truck purchases, on a temporary basis but renewed several times and made permanent in 2004. But because apparently it was inexpertly written, it did not do what was intended and instead vehicles operating in Louisiana would be purchased and registered in other states, which also spurred building terminals in other states (Oklahoma and Texas, mostly). After some more discussion, mainly Richmond observing some kind of fuel conservation measures might/should be a part of this bill, it was reported favorably without discussion.

DID YOU KNOW?
HB 21 (amended to make Townsend the author) would give tax credits to sugar cane farmers for transporting their product. This was in response to Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s promise to provide aid to these farmers instead of spending huge amounts of state money to build them a mill a little closer to where the cane is grown. This would cost at least $3 million a year.

Richmond asked about other breaks that sugar farmers got, and was told there were some. He also was concerned that this law would not encourage reduction of transportation costs which would degrade highways and the environment. Rep. Ken Odinet wanted to know if the bill covered raw sugar; it did not.

Rep. Lelon Kenney asked why only sugar farmers were being advantaged this way; why not all people in involved in agriculture? But it was pointed out that the call limited the subject matter to just that commodity. Nonetheless, Rep. Jeff Arnold authored an amendment basically to allow many different products to receive the credit and more of it. Rep. Damon Baldone said this would put perhaps cost the state too much and had germaneness problems. Arnold said it should be passed now and any germaneness question dealt with later. But it failed 6-9.

Baldone then asked for an amendment that would take off the mileage restriction, which was not to pay the credit for the first and last 50 miles. Many were concerned that the costs would escalate dramatically as a result. The amendment was passed without objection, and then the bill was adopted without objection.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
“He’d be coming in here to tell us that about right now.”
Townsend, responding to Richmond’s comment that recently elected Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover, formerly on the committee, had passed along a message to them dealing with a matter about an hour into the meeting, making light of Glover’s penchant for showing up late to committee meetings.

08 December 2006

Legislative second extraordinary session through Dec. 8

Welcome to coverage of the 2006 Second Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature. As in the past, this blog will identify the best and worst bills from the session from Dec. 8 to possibly Dec. 17, and periodically report on the committee and floor actions, and the ultimate fate, of these bills. Actually, almost all committee action is going to occur in the House Appropriations and Ways and Means Committees given the nature of the session call, although some bills might end up heading straight to the floor. We’ll see what happens.

Note that in the list below that there are similar bills out there for some of these. If bills other than these but like them begin to move through the Legislature, they will be tracked instead of these, and identified at the time. Without further ado:

THE GOOD: Both by Rep. Pete Schneider, HB 9 and HB 10 would start reducing the unfunded accrued liabilities in the state’s pension funds. His HB 42 would abolish the duplicative and overly politicized Insurance Rating Commission. His HB 61 would cut income taxes for all except the lowest tax bracket. All by Rep. Taylor Townsend, HB 26, HB 27, HB 28, HB 29, and HB 30 would undo some tax deductions that once were but now are unavailable to Louisiana income taxpayers that are available for federal tax filers, on home mortgage interest points, some medical and dental expenses, some casualty and theft losses, for some charitable giving, with the last enabling all of it. His HB 66 and HB 67 would accelerate already planned tax cuts related to franchise fees for corporations and machinery purchases. HB 72 by Speaker Joe Salter would create the structure by which any 2005 insurance assessment paid by policyholders to offset losses incurred by the state-run insurer be reimbursed.

THE BAD: HB 21 by Rep. Charlie DeWitt would provide a subsidy by tax credit for the already-overproductive sugar cane industry. HB 31 by Rep. John Alario would include supplemental pay raises for public safety officers, but there is no guarantee that in the long term the state can afford these. His HB 89 creates a large set of funds in which to dump money most of which are unadvisable (such as creating a state-run catastrophe pool) and also tries to get around legal restrictions placed on recognizing surplus funds. HB 59 by Rep. Yvonne Dorsey makes a good idea bad by allowing a child tax credit of $50, but then allows those who don’t pay any taxes to collect it as an overpayment. HB 81 by Rep. Cedric Richmond would raise the minimum wage for state employees, forcing wages everywhere by artificial means thus stifling productivity. HB 109 by Rep. Juan LaFonta would encourage the state to compete against private insurers by not making the state-run insurer charge a higher rate.

SATURDAY: HB 31, 72, and 89 are scheduled to be heard by the House Appropriations Committee; HB 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 59 are scheduled to be heard in the House Ways and Means Committee.

13 July 2006

Legislative regular session wrapup -- Senate & Blanco scorecard

In this week’s wrapup we’ll look at voting records in the Senate and for the governor. To remind, 13 bills were selected to compile to the scorecard. Eleven of these appeared as good or bad bills in the Log prior to and during the session, while the other two, HB 685 and HB 699, developed into litmus-test bills during the session. These bills were chosen because they represented important issues on which there was some dissension within the chambers.

A point scale was assigned to each, with more important bills comprising a greater proportion of the index, where low scores represent a very liberal/populist ideology and high scores represent a very conservative/reform ideology. Both the House and Senate were graded on all the same bills except for two, HB 853 which failed in the House and SB 700 which passed the Senate but was prevented from being considered in the House. House members only were scored for the former, Senate members only for the latter.

The bills and their proportions: HB 685 and HB 699 – 13 percent each; HB 1028 and HB 1129 – 11 percent; HB 815 and HB 194 – 9 percent; HB 1130 and HB 853 or SB 700 – 7 percent; SB 18, SB 382, SB 742, and SB 747 – 5 percent.

Usually, not voting was counted as voting against a bill, since that is the practical effect given the minimum thresholds to pass bills (53 in the House except for some matters where it is 70; 20 in the Senate except for some matters where it is 26). However, if a member had asked for an excused absence for that day, a “nay” was not recorded and that member’s figure would be adjusted by not including that vote.

Some things to note:
  • The Senate is more attenuated than the House, with a range of only 57 compared to that of 91. However, it is barely more liberal/populist, with the average score being a 45 to the House’s 46.
  • There’s also more partisan mixture at the top. Democrats hold down the tied-for-second, seventh, and eighth most conservative/reformer places. Overall, Republicans average just a 55 while Democrats average a 39. These Democrats, Sens. Mike Smith, Nick Gautreaux, and Ann Duplessis, are even above the GOP average.
  • Only two GOP senators score at or below the Democrat average. One, Sen. Sherri Smith Cheek, also scored low last year. But the lowest scorer is a surprise, Sen. Craig Romero, at 37. He’s also the biggest relative mover from last year, having gone from second-highest to thirteenth lowest. Whether this has anything to do his challenge for the U.S. House District 3 seat is an open question, and while he is picking up all kinds of conservative and Republican support, his legislative record of this year makes one wonder why.
  • As he did last year, Sen. Max Malone scored highest. Interestingly, his district encapsulates almost in its entirety the district of Rep. Mike Powell, the most conservative/reformer member of the House in the 2006 regular session. Clearly, the area which straddles the Red River in southern Shreveport and southern Bossier City would seem to be the most conservative in the state.
  • And, some statistics on Gov. Kathleen Blanco: adjusting for the fact that HB 194, HB 853, SB 382, and SB 700 never made it to her, computing her score on the basis of the bills signed or vetoed, she scored a 38, below last year’s 42. Again, this makes it hard for her to claim she is either conservative or a reformer.

    Malone Republican 72
    Hollis Republican 64
    Michot Republican 64
    Quinn Republican 64
    Smith, M Democrat 64
    Theunissen Republican 64
    Gautreaux, N Democrat 63
    Duplessis Democrat 61
    Boasso Republican 60
    Barham Republican 59
    Kostelka Republican 55
    Fontenot Republican 54
    Dardenne Republican 53
    Schedler Republican 53
    Amedee Democrat 52
    Adley Democrat 48
    Cain Republican 48
    Chaisson Democrat 48
    Ellington Democrat 48
    Hines Democrat 48
    Lentini Republican 48
    Dupre Democrat 46
    Marionneaux Democrat 45
    Cheek Republican 39
    Fields Democrat 39
    Murray Democrat 37
    Romero, C Republican 37
    Shepherd Democrat 34
    Jackson, L Democrat 33
    Ullo Democrat 32
    Cravins, Sr. Democrat 31
    Broome Democrat 28
    Gautreaux, B Democrat 28
    Jones Democrat 28
    Heitmeier Democrat 27
    McPherson Democrat 24
    Nevers Democrat 24
    Mount Democrat 19
    Bajoie Democrat 15
  • 30 June 2006

    Legislative regular session wrapup -- House scorecard

    In this week’s wrapup we’ll look at voting records in the House. By next week, the governor should have decided what vetoes to issue so we’ll look at the Senate’s voting record and hers (in essence) for the 2006 Regular Session.

    Thirteen bills were selected to compile to the scorecard. Eleven of these appeared as good or bad bills in the Log prior to and during the session, while the other two, HB 685 and HB 699, developed into litmus-test bills during the session. These bills were chosen because they represented important issues on which there was some dissension within the chambers.

    A point scale was assigned to each, with more important bills comprising a greater proportion of the index, where low scores represent a very liberal/populist ideology and high scores represent a very conservative/reform ideology. Both the House and Senate were graded on all the same bills except for two, HB 853 which failed in the House and SB 700 which passed the Senate but was prevented from being considered in the House. House members only were scored for the former, Senate members only for the latter.

    The bills and their proportions: HB 685 and HB 699 – 13 percent each; HB 1028 and HB 1129 – 11 percent; HB 815 and HB 194 – 9 percent; HB 1130 and HB 853 or SB 700 – 7 percent; SB 18, SB 382, SB 742, and SB 747 – 5 percent.

    Usually, not voting was counted as voting against a bill, since that is the practical effect given the minimum thresholds to pass bills (53 in the House except for some matters where it is 70; 20 in the Senate except for some matters where it is 26). However, if a member had asked for an excused absence for that day, a “nay” was not recorded and that member’s figure would be adjusted by not including that vote. The same applied to the newest member of the House, seated with the session partly through.

    House members are allowed to change their votes within a legislative day as long as changing it does not change the overall outcome of the vote. However, for the purposes of this scorecard, to emphasize that legislators need to be on top of their jobs, they were scored on their original votes.

    Some things to note:
  • Only one member was “perfect” one way or the other, Rep. Mike Powell who scored 100 as the perfect conservative/reformer.
  • The leadership was pretty much at the extremes. Republican Delegation House leader Rep. Jim Tucker scored a 94, third-highest overall and among Republicans. Democrat Caucus leader Rep. Eric LaFleur scored the lowest of all, a 9.
  • Interestingly, House Speaker Joe Salter was the most conservative/reformist Democrat at 61, behind 26 Republicans and the independent Rep. Joel Robideaux.
  • But, he was ahead of 14 Republicans, including all three party switchers from last year. While Rep. William Daniel IV was close at 57, third-lowest Republican was convert Rep. Ernest Wooton, and second-lowest convert Rep. Blade Morrish.
  • The lowest scoring Republican was Rep. Joe Toomy at 28, while the typical House Republican scored 64. The Democrat average was a 34, meaning only he, Morrish, and Wooton scored at or below that, while obviously no Democrat scored above the Republican average.
  • Relative to last year’s position, the biggest mover was Rep. Billy Montgomery, rising from tied for second-lowest scoring to fourth-highest Democrat at 56. (Rumor runs rampant that term-limited Montgomery in 2007 wants to run as a Republican in the theoretically most conservative Senate district in the state, District 37 now held by Sen. Max Malone).

    Powell, M Republican 100
    Schneider Republican 95
    Tucker Republican 94
    LaBruzzo Republican 93
    Scalise Republican 88
    Kennard Republican 87
    Lambert Republican 86
    Burns Republican 82
    Katz Republican 80
    Greene Republican 77
    Walsworth Republican 77
    Beard Republican 75
    Crane Republican 74
    Lancaster Republican 74
    Bowler Republican 70
    Winston Republican 69
    Geymann Republican 68
    Smiley Republican 67
    Alexander Republican 64
    Crowe Republican 64
    Smith, JH Republican 64
    Waddell Republican 64
    Bruneau Republican 63
    Dove Republican 61
    Johns Republican 61
    Pitre Republican 61
    Robideaux Independent 61
    Salter Democrat 61
    Erdey Republican 60
    Hebert Democrat 60
    Alario Democrat 58
    Daniel Republican 57
    Montgomery Democrat 56
    Martiny Republican 54
    Hutter Republican 52
    Smith, G Democrat 52
    Trahan Republican 52
    Chandler Democrat 52
    Faucheux Democrat 51
    Bruce Democrat 50
    Frith Democrat 46
    Morrell Democrat 46
    Odinet Democrat 46
    Strain Republican 46
    Ansardi Democrat 45
    Hammett Democrat 45
    Powell, T Republican 45
    Baudoin Democrat 44
    Cravins, Jr. Democrat 44
    McVea Republican 44
    Fannin Democrat 43
    Smith, JR Democrat 43
    Triche Democrat 43
    White Republican 41
    Hopkins Democrat 40
    Carter, R Democrat 39
    Downs Republican 39
    McDonald Democrat 39
    Townsend Democrat 39
    Kleckley Republican 37
    Damico Democrat 36
    Guillory, E Democrat 36
    Jackson, M Democrat 36
    Romero, R Democrat 36
    Durand Democrat 35
    Richmond Democrat 35
    Badon Democrat 34
    Baldone Democrat 34
    Carter, K Democrat 34
    Heaton Democrat 34
    Kenney Democrat 34
    Pinac Democrat 34
    Ritchie Democrat 34
    Wooton Republican 34
    Hunter Democrat 32
    LaFonta Democrat 32
    Cazayoux Democrat 30
    Farrar Democrat 30
    Glover Democrat 30
    Hill Democrat 30
    Morrish Republican 30
    Thompson Democrat 30
    Dartez Democrat 29
    Toomy Republican 28
    Walker Democrat 28
    DeWitt Democrat 26
    Guillory, M Democrat 26
    Jefferson Democrat 24
    Baylor Democrat 24
    Curtis Democrat 23
    Gallot Democrat 23
    Gray Democrat 23
    Honey Democrat 23
    Marchand Democrat 23
    Quezaire Democrat 23
    Barrow Democrat 23
    Doerge Democrat 21
    Harris Democrat 21
    St. Germain Democrat 21
    Arnold Democrat 18
    Pierre Democrat 18
    Smith, JD Democrat 14
    Burrell Democrat 10
    Dorsey Democrat 10
    LaFleur Democrat 9
  • 24 June 2006

    Legislative regular session through Jun. 24

    Back from a week hiatus because it didn’t make much sense to give a week’s summary right before the end of the session, let’s recount what happened the last nine days of the 2006 Regular Session. In a couple of more weeks the final wrapup will appear with all gubernatorial actions, as well as scores for legislators and the governor.

    THIS WEEK-PLUS FOR THE GOOD: HB 58 had rules suspended to be heard on the Senate floor, was passed by the Senate, had amendments concurred in and was sent to the governor; HB 108 passed Senate, had amendments concurred in, and was sent to the governor; HB 109 was signed into law; HB 604 passed Senate, and was sent to the governor; HB 707 passed Senate and had conference report adopted; HB 850 passed Senate and was sent to the governor; HB 760 was signed into law; HB 992 had conference report rejected by House; HB 1260 passed Senate and was sent to the governor; SB 18 with minor amendments passed House, had amendments concurred in, and was sent to the governor; SB 25 passed House and was sent to the governor; SB 27 with minor amendments passed House, had amendments concurred in, and was sent to the governor; SB 33 was signed into law; SB 382 was indefinitely postponed by the House; SB 645 with minor amendments passed House, had amendments concurred in, and was sent to the governor; SB 647 with minor amendments passed House, had amendments concurred in, and was sent to the governor; SB 681 passed House and was sent to the governor; SB 742 with minor amendments passed House, had amendments concurred in, and was sent to the governor; SB 746 had amendments concurred with by Senate and was sent to the governor.

    THIS WEEK-PLUS FOR THE BAD: HB 126 had rules suspended to be heard on the Senate floor, was passed by the Senate, had amendments concurred in and was sent to the governor; HB 194 had rules suspended to be heard on the Senate floor, and failed to pass the Senate, HB 1028 had rules suspended to be heard on the Senate floor, was passed by the Senate, had amendments concurred in, was sent to the governor who vetoed it; HB 1129 was signed into law; HB 1130 had rules suspended to be heard on the Senate floor, was passed with minor amendments by the Senate, had conference report adopted and was sent to the governor; SB 513 with minor amendments passed House, Senate rejected amendments; SB 613 with minor amendments passed House, had amendments concurred in, and was sent to the governor; SB 747 passed House and was sent to the governor.

    SCORECARD:
    Total House introductions: 1404; total Senate introductions: 755.

    Total House good bills: 31; total Senate good bills: 19.

    Total House bad bills: 19; total Senate bad bills: 22.

    Total House good bills heard in House committee: 46; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 24.

    Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 22; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 22.

    Total House good bills passing committee: 16; total Senate good bills passing committee: 15.

    Total House bad bills passing committee: 11; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 9.

    Total House good bills passing House: 12; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 11.

    Total House bad bills passing House: 6; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 6.

    Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 10; total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 11.

    Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 6; total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 5.

    Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 10; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 11.

    Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 5; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 4.

    Total House good bills passing Senate: 10; total Senate good bills passing House: 10.

    Total House bad bills passing Senate: 4; total Senate bad bills passing House: 3.

    Total House good bills going to the governor/secretary of state: 8; total good Senate bills going to the governor/secretary of state: 10.

    Total House bad bills going to the governor/secretary of state: 4; total bad Senate bills going to the governor/secretary of state: 2.

    Total House good bills signed into law/on ballot: 4; total good Senate bills signed into law/on ballot: 2.

    Total House bad bills signed into law/on ballot: 1; total good Senate bills signed into law/on ballot: 0.

    19 June 2006

    Floor action, Jun. 19: HB 1281, SB 454

    DID YOU KNOW?
    During debate in the House on the conference report for HB 1281, Rep. Mike Powell sniffed out the fact that the bill, which was supposed to address a Supreme Court decisions about the applicability of tax increment financing, added such an arrangement to aid the Tournament Players Championship golf course in Jefferson Parish. Powell noted this was the first existing course getting this designation, that it could have a ripple effect for others, and it would cause of a loss of funding at the state and local level. Handler Rep. John Alario said the arrangement would spur economic development (and that it could be used to offset the state contract with the course forcing it to pay the course for rounds of golf unplayed) but Powell said since the course already was there the TIF did not serve that purpose. He pointed out that this precedent could be applied to many existing facilities, in essence transferring state wealth to private interests for “economic development” purposes.

    However, the house majority did not share Powell’s concern, as the conference committee report was adopted 58-32.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 454 has been rewritten by amendment several times, so the House finally got a crack at its latest incarnation via conference report. Handler Rep. Jim Fannin explained the bill would create a panel of three representatives who would determine when a gallon of ethanol minus federal subsidies was equal to or less than a gallon of gas, only then would the requirements of Act 313 kick in. (He said incorrectly, in response to a question, that one representative was selected by the Commissioner of Higher Education; it's the Revenue Secretary.)

    Rep. Mike Walsworth asked more information about the pricing mechanism’s determination. He also noted that the determination of equality or less for 60 days occurred only once, then the mechanism would be scuttled (meaning if the prices subsequently diverged with ethanol going higher, the mandate of Act 313 still would stay in place).

    Rep. Steve Scalise wanted to know why the “hard trigger” written into statute by the House was removed, replaced by a more subjective process. Fannin said it was part of the process and now was not the time to reopen the bill, just to decide on the report. “This is the best instrument we have” he insisted. Responding to questioning, he said it was a fairer deal because this measure asked for parity and over a 60-day period, whereas the discarded amendment had a ten cent buffer for 30 days.

    Rep. Jim Tucker lamented that this was a Hobson’s Choice, either taking no action or approving a bad compromise. He said a bad law was better than none and would vote for it. “We need to revisit this next year, meanwhile, the Louisiana consumer is getting screwed.” Rep. Francis Thompson argued that including the federal subsidy was appropriate because oil producers got subsidies, he said.

    It seemed the House took Tucker’s advice to heart, as the report was adopted 97-1.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY
    How long is this open audition process going to last?
    Rep. Robby Carter, noting a series of acting speakers were running the House.

    This is the last train leaving the station today
    Fannin, noting if SB 454 didn’t get dealt with today, the matter would not be dealt with at all as the session ends.

    The greatest legislators and legislature ever are right here today.
    Special guest Jay Chevalier, before singing the new state recovery song on the House floor.

    16 June 2006

    Floor action, Jun. 16: SB 723, SB 382, SB 753

    DID YOU KNOW?
    The handling SB 723 broke into a spat among local legislators. Rep. Billy Montgomery was handling this bill, which altered the terms and composition of members of the Caddo/Bossier Port Authority. But Rep. Ernest Baylor complained that Montgomery, who was handling the bill for Sen. Max Malone, was cutting out Rep. Cedric Glover, who was absent but on his way to the Capitol (it already had been delayed because of Glover’s absence for personal reasons). Montgomery was concerned that if the bill got sent back to the calendar it might not get brought up again, but consented to Baylor’s request.

    Apparently, it took Glover more time than the 15-20 minutes Baylor said. A couple of hours later, the bill was brought up but again returned to the calendar. A half-hour later it was brought back, and then yanked yet again.

    It finally came up in the afternoon. Montgomery got an amendment by consent to change the designees of the cities involved (Shreveport and Bossier City) done by the governing authority (city councils) rather than mayors (its original form). It passed without objection.

    Glover wished to amend the bill to make representation on the body proportional rather than geographically-based, calling the bill in that form a form of “geographic affirmative action;” the governing authority would make selections without any geographic criteria. He claimed it was a unifying amendment. It passed 61-21.

    Even though Glover won on this, he said he still wouldn’t vote for the bill. He said Shreveport dominated the economy, and thus needs to maintain the increased proportion of membership under present law. Montgomery disagreed, saying Shreveport should not have an automatic majority on the port commission, that it should have meaningful input. He said it was a better bill amended, and should be passed. It did, 54-44.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 382 would eliminate essentially gifts to legislators of a sporting and cultural nature. Rep. William Daniel IV stated this, but admitted with a restrictive amendment concerning sports events from the Senate that he didn’t quite know what it did, in terms of pricing some offers, and said he had an amendment to strip the other to simplify matters. Daniel said the bill was really intended to ban free tickets and stripping the amendment would produce clarity.

    Rep. Troy Hebert was asked why the bill was needed. Daniel said he didn’t think free tickets influenced anybody, but that author Sen. Jay Dardenne thought the appearance of impropriety was causing image problems for the Legislature. Hebert said appearances were deceiving so there was no need for the bill. Daniel said perhaps the public resented legislators getting free tickets. Hebert said sometimes legislators gave these away to the public.

    Daniel said basically the bill said anything the public had to pay for, legislators had to pay for, even if an offer of a gift was made. Rep. Avon Honey wondered whether press passes counted; Daniel said no.

    Daniel’s amendment would allow universities to offer these kinds of tickets. Rep. Charlie Lancaster pointed out that universities could lobby under this amendment, but not private sector interests. Rep. Charlie DeWitt called the bill a smokescreen that would do nothing, there was lots of pressing business, and asked for bill postponement. Daniel said he had to object. The motion to postpone passed 51-41.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 753 by the father of handler Rep. Don Cravins would authorize the state attorney general or local district attorney to issue a cease and desist order after discovering an employer has hired undocumented aliens. This would create procedure to enforce existing federal law. In fact, Cravins had an amendment to take out filing an affidavit by businesses that they had not knowingly hired illegal aliens, to prevent the possibility of federal mail fraud charges being filed, which passed without objection.

    As he had in committee, Rep. Steve Scalise proposed an amendment to place sanctions against the illegal workers themselves. Rep. Monica Walker said it shifted the burden of the legislation to the workers rather than employers, changing the intent of the bill, which Scalise disputed. He said laws already covered potential reporting of businesses. Rep. Eric LaFleur suggested leaving in the employer sanction, as did Rep. Kay Katz, who subsequently asked Cravins to temporarily defer the bill to put in an amendment like Scalise’s without removing employer sanctions. But Cravins refused, saying federal safeguards were enough on the illegal employee issue.

    Scalise noted the bill as it stood would allow for harassment of some businesses by other businesses or government, and said his amendment would deal with the root of the problem. The amendment failed 28-59. The bill then passed 91-5. (Cravins noted after his father’s bill passed that his father had killed one of his last year at this time, but he did not retaliate this year. Speaker Joe Salter said “you acted wisely.”)

    DID YOU KNOW?
    Rep. Jalila Jefferson-Bullock got permission for an absence, and an hour later delivered a son. Somebody unannounced won the betting pool for his delivery time and weight.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    I’m a little confused.
    Join the club.
    Is a ticket to cockfighting a sporting or cultural event?
    I think that would be a gaming event.
    An exchange between Daniel and Rep. Don Trahan concerning SB 382.

    I wanted to vote no.
    Daniel, when a motion to grant him more time to answer SB 382 questions, because of an objection, passed.

    I never felt the urge to have a cigarette until now.
    Daniel, as the relentless questioning and criticism about SB 382 continued.

    I’ve never seen so many bad bills in one day without my name on them.
    Rep. Jack Smith.

    That’s why they call it “acting.”
    Rep. Jim Tucker, when turning over his acting speaker role back to Salter; earlier, a member had told him “you’re mother is watching [the Internet feed] and says you need to straighten your tie.”

    15 June 2006

    Floor action, Jun. 15: SB 18, SB 86

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 18 would set a closed primary system for congressional elections. Handler Rep. Charlie Lancaster noted that under the current blanket primary system Louisiana congressmen got a late start because the U.S. Supreme Court treats the primary election as a general election and thus the general election it classifies as a runoff, occurring after the first Tuesday after the first Monday Constitutional stricture. Lancaster noted two different solutions to this had failed judicial tests, so this was the next logical step.

    Rep. John Alario offered amendments to change the way independent voters were treated. The bill was going to allow parties to allow independents to vote in their primaries if they wished; Alario wanted to have them automatically able to choose one party’s nominee unless the party chose to prohibit that. It was adopted by consent.

    Rep. Joel Robideaux said he didn’t like the bill even with the amendment “for obvious reasons” (maybe because he is the only independent in the Legislature). He said it would still discriminate against non-affiliated voters (independents) and set a bad precedent. Rep. Peppi Bruneau said it was the “fairest” system., and said getting a late start wasn’t so bad – plus, later elections might attract a disproportionate amount of money from outsiders spent on campaigns. Rep. Billy Chandler argued primaries would have very low turnouts to determine party nominees under the bill.

    Lancaster pointed out that anybody can vote for anybody when the general election came around, and that turnouts usually are pretty decent on those days. He reminded that the courts took a lot of discretion out of their hands, so this was what had to be done.

    The bill passed 58-35.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 86 would extend the hours for early voting on the final day (Saturday, a week before the election). An amendment passed without objection which allowed existing employees who were elections commissioners to be employed during the extra four hours, which might actually save money, according to handler Rep. Rick Gallot.

    Rep. Kay Katz sprung a surprise amendment, to change election day poll hours from 6 AM to 8 PM to 7 AM to 7 PM, a separate bill she had tried to get passed. She said with more early voting hours this made this money-saving move even more sensible, and would prevent fatigue of commissioners. Rep. Willie Hunter questioned the germaneness of the amendment to the bill, and Speaker Joe Salter said it was not.

    The House went right to a vote, and the bill passed 84-13.

    Floor action, Jun. 15: SB 673, SB 747

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 673 by Sen. Max Malone would require disclosure of ownership information of any entity that got a public contract of $500,000 or greater. Speaking for it in the House, Rep. Mike Powell argued the bill provided sunshine into who was getting paid taxpayer dollars. After passing a technical amendment, Rep. Eric LaFleur spoke, concerned that there would be some onerous burden placed upon those filing the notarized form, and would be subject to prosecution. Powell said that any false information technically could not be compelled by the law, as only those filing perjured information could be prosecuted under another section of the legal code, as penalties were not provided in this law.

    A lockout was requested. The bill failed 39-48, most Republicans voting for it, most Democrats against. (Later, Rep. Billy Montgomery changed his vote from being against to for it.)

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 747 would allow New Orleans to charge more to telephone consumers to fund an emergency operations center until the end of 2009. Rep. Shirley Bowler asked the acting speaker whether the bill represented a fee increase that should originate only from the House. Acting speaker Bryant Hammett ruled it was a local government increase request and thus could come from the Senate. The bill passed 70-25, almost all those opposed being Republicans.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    In all my years, this is the worst bill I’ve ever laid eyes on.
    Rep. John Alario, referring to SB 743 which would regulate lending on the basis of auto titles. His amendment added to it forced its handler to withdraw the bill.

    This bill, after being heavily amended, really doesn’t do a whole lot.
    Rep. Jack Smith, handling SB 30.

    13 June 2006

    Committee action, Jun. 13: HB 169, HB 1260

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 169 would allow disciplinary actions to be completed in 120 days rather than 60 days. Author Rep. Austin Badon and New Orleans Police Chief Warren Riley said to the Senate Judiciary C Committee that officers actually would admit guilt to criminal activities because they knew the investigations would not be finished in time, and gave examples of where the 60-day limit had prevented discipline. They argued this change was needed in state law in order to change the ingrained culture in New Orleans that encouraged the misuse of trust granted to police officers by some on the force.

    But opponents noted that this would affect the entire state and would put more of a burden on officer who may be innocent because it would make the officers wait longer and during that time would place restrictions on their activities such as in earning overtime. Sen. Ann Duplessis said this should be an internal matter rather than changing state law, that the NOPD should become more efficient in its processing. With that, she moved to defer the bill, and it was done so without objection.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 1260 would impose penalties on students on threaten teachers. Currently, author Rep. Mike Powell said the only penalties occurred when a threat was carried out. The bill also would tighten up the definition of what is teacher assault. The law would empower removal of the student from the classroom of the threatened teacher (if credible evidence of the threat is found) to another school if a reasonable substitute can be found. “We can’t afford to wait to prevent this when we have a warning sign,” Powell said.

    Duplessis asked about the “suitable school” exception, wondering how it would work in Orleans Parish’s depleted environment. Powell said it came from present law concerning the actual battering of a teacher, and admitted it may not be possible to relocate that student. Home schooling could be an alternative, Duplessis suggested, and Powell said it the exception may encourage school districts which had not set up alternative schools for problematic students to move forward on that, and Orleans should do that.

    A motion was made to report favorably, and was done so without objection.

    WEDNESDAY: HB 1382 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.

    11 June 2006

    Legislative regular session through Jun. 10

    Note: HB 909 has been removed from the list of “good” bills since it redefines illogically what is meant for a legislator to begin a term.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 109 had amendments concurred with and goes to the governor; HB 604 had rules suspended and reported favorably out of Senate committee; HB 707 had rules suspended and reported favorably out of Senate committee; HB 815 was signed into law; HB 992 with minor amendments was passed by Senate, House rejected them; SB 1 was sent to the secretary of state; SB 18 with minor amendments was reported favorably by House committee; SB 33 was sent to the governor; SB 382 with major amendments was reported favorably by committee; SB 645 with minor amendments passed Senate; SB 647 was declared duplicate of HB 656; SB 746 with minor amendments passed House;

    THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 126 was reported favorably by Senate committee; HB 144 failed passage; HB 1028 with minor amendments passed House; HB 1129 was sent to the governor; SB 513 was reported favorably by House committee; SB 613 was reported favorably by House committee; SB 700 was reported favorably by House committee; SB 747 was reported favorably by House committee;

    TUESDAY: HB 1260 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary C Committee.

    SCORECARD:
    (Again, a reminder: some numbers will fluctuate because of similar bills being heard, which may make their numbers higher than the numbers listed as “good” or “bad” introduced. If more than one similar bill makes progress, all will be recorded. However, if any ever become legislation, there should be no duplication; only the fate of one of them would be reflected at the end. Also recall that the number of introduced bills will inch up as substitutes are declared of bills that did get filed before the filing deadline.)

    Total House introductions: 1404; total Senate introductions: 755.

    Total House good bills: 31; total Senate good bills: 19.

    Total House bad bills: 19; total Senate bad bills: 22.

    Total House good bills heard in House committee: 46; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 24.

    Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 22; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 22.

    Total House good bills passing committee: 16; total Senate good bills passing committee: 15.

    Total House bad bills passing committee: 10; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 9.

    Total House good bills passing House: 12; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 10.

    Total House bad bills passing House: 5; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 6.

    Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 9; total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 9.

    Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 4; total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 5.

    Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 8; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 9.

    Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 3; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 4.

    Total House good bills passing Senate: 4; total Senate good bills passing House: 3.

    Total House bad bills passing Senate: 1; total Senate bad bills passing House: 0.

    Total House good bills going to the governor: 3; total good Senate bills going to the governor: 2.

    Total House bad bills going to the governor: 1; total bad Senate bills going to the governor: 0.

    Total House good bills signed into law/on ballot: 1; total good Senate bills signed into law/on ballot: 1.

    08 June 2006

    Committee action, Jun. 8: SB 753

    SB 753 would authorize the state attorney general or local district attorney to issue a cease and desist order after discovering an employer has hired undocumented aliens. This would create procedure to enforce existing federal law. Rep. Don Cravins, presenting his father’s bill to the House Labor and Industrial Relations Committee, pointed out there would have to be two unknowing violations with no corrective action taken within 10 days, which should not a big burden on employers. He said this legislation followed other states’ and introduced penalties previously absent.

    Rep. Steve Scalise pointed out that the bill didn’t provide sanctions against the illegal workers themselves, nor did it provide money or incentives for the state to follow this law. Cravins said the state needed to pursue this as a first step in order to protect those workers, American workers, and legitimate employers.

    Sen. Don Cravins appeared, arguing that this bill should not slow down recovery efforts, which Scalise had said might happen given the chilling effect employers doing hurricane reconstruction might feel with passage of the bill. He said it would be a disincentive to illegal immigration.

    Rep. Juan LaFonta agreed with Scalise that “knowingly” needed stronger definition to protect honest employers, and offered an amendment to do so. But Rep. Shirley Bowler said LaFonta’s definition might actually achieve the opposite, given her reading of federal law. Supporters argued that the bill’s penalty would kick in only if the order was not followed, not for the actions of the employer, so federal law wouldn’t apply. Bowler then said a definition of “knowingly” then wasn’t necessary. It was put to a vote, and the amendment was defeated 6-4 along racial lines of those present.

    Rep. Ronnie Johns also expressed reservations that honest employers could get caught up on the wrong side of the law, and that it allowed government potentially too much discretion in applying the law. Sen. Cravins said the “knowingly” part would be applied only after the issuance of the order, not applied to the original hiring decision, and thought it provided sufficient protection against arbitrary enforcement.

    Scalise offered an amendment to shift the burden from employer to illegal employees, deleting employer penalties and requiring officials to inform the federal government to institute deporting actions. LaFonta said it was the employer’s fault, that they “lured” illegal workers here and this harkened back to the same logic that slaveowners used saying they should not be punished. Scalise said the metaphor was inappropriate because illegal aliens came here by choice and thus needed punishment. Cravins said officials had an obligation to report it anyway, and said maybe that could be added to the bill but not removing the penalties. He said it was tantamount to saying the government should allow the flouting of the law. The amendment failed 6-5 on a party-line vote with all Democrats in favor.

    Opponents argued the bill was overbroad, which could lead to prosecution of anybody, and didn’t add anything in terms of prosecution to existing law. Given the intrusiveness of the investigation process, it created an enormous burden on employers for even honest, innocent employers, and the bill would encourage more of this for even frivolous reasons. The law would encourage reporting by state and local officials just to stay on the safe side of the law’s requirements, and given their lack of resources they would not conduct an adequate investigation, presuming the need for federal investigation and the launching of an intrusive process for little or no reason.

    Rep. Tank Powell pointed out that the law would require costs of time and supplies with implementation of the law for businesses of any size. Further, businesses report each other frivolously to try to harass their competition which this law would encourage, opponents said.

    Bowler offered amendments to prevent what she said were two layers of penalties, one at the federal and state level, and to prevent mail fraud charges from being filed as a result of filings concerning the investigations. Sen. Cravins didn’t see the need for the amendment. It failed 7-4, again on party lines with republicans in the minority.

    The bill passed 7-4, mostly along party lines.

    QUOTE OF THE DAY:
    It’s scary … we’re definitely making strides in this committee.
    LaFonta, noting he and Scalise might actually agree on a bill.

    06 June 2006

    Committee action, Jun. 6: SB 18, SB 411, SB 86, SB 476

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 18 would create closed primaries for federal elections. Author Sen. Cleo Fields argued to the House and Governmental Affairs Committee that this bill would solve the U.S. Supreme Court decision that, given Louisiana’s blanket primary system, forced Louisiana elected members to Congress to be seated later because the general election runoff was having these people elected later than those from all other states.

    Rep. Peppi Bruneau asked whether this could force three elections, and the attendant cost, which Fields concurred. Fields also told him that parties could opt to allow no-party affiliates (independents) to participate in their primaries. Bruneau said this might cut a lot of people out of participating in the first stage of the process, and argued that an open primary system ought to be instituted (where independents got to choose a party primary in which to vote). Fields said he couldn’t see the parties “locking them out” as a practical matter.

    Bruneau objected to adoption by consent, and came out on the short end of a 6-1 vote.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 411 would require initiation of a civil action suit against people filing for state or local office contrary to the law; the illegal qualifier would have to pay costs involved. Author Sen. Max Malone noted that four candidates who had committed felonies prior to elapsing of the constitutional 15-year qualification had run in the last round of Shreveport elections. He said this would be an additional tool to discourage this behavior and would take out having third parties having to file such suits.

    Rep. Billy Montgomery wondered about the federal vs. state felony distinction. Malone said federal pardons had to be obtained for federal crimes, and state pardons for state crimes, echoing what he said the governor had told him. Bruneau pointed out that the bill was somewhat duplicative, Sec. 495 of the Election Code (Title 18), and preferred the consolidation of such matters there which addressed it which this bill did not. He also said East Baton Rouge Parish always had been used as the venue for such suits for state office, while this bill would allow venues in all sorts of places. Malone said there were extra penalties in his bill for compliance.

    Bruneau suggested that the bill could make the Attorney General force local district attorneys to act, with the penalties. Malone agreed, and Bruneau asked for adoption which was consented to without objection. It was reported similarly.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 86 by Sen. Charles Jones would extend early voting four hours later into Saturday when a holiday was not already within the early voting period. The state’s registrars were concerned that burdens on their offices were slowly being increased by legislation such as this, and wanted the committee to know this. Amended for technicalities, it was reported by consent.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 476 by Sen. James David Cain would instruct the Secretary of State to distribute documents recognizing America’s religious heritage. Opponents argued that because the bill actually included the language, one particular version of things such as the Ten Commandments, might be exclusionary. The committee then embarked on postulating amendments that made editorial changes to the texts of these documents. Yes, it did get reported with these amendments without objection.

    WEDNESDAY: HB 604 and HB 669 are scheduled to be heard in the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    We agreed on seven of them … that’s better than we usually do.
    Bruneau, as the SB 476 debate started to get silly.

    We aren’t adding any Commandments, are we?
    Montgomery, as it got sillier.

    Will we amend it to say “Thou shalt not bloviate?”
    Rep. Rick Gallot as the debate became truly silly, referring to a remark Bruneau had made earlier in the week.

    02 June 2006

    Legislative regular session through Jun. 3

    THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 109 with minor amendments passed Senate; HB 760 was sent to the governor; HB 992 with minor amendments passed Senate; SB 1 with minor amendments passed House and was sent to the governor; SB 33 with minor amendments passed House;

    THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 126 passed House; HB 1129 with minor amendments passed Senate; SB 700 passed Senate;

    MONDAY: SB 513 is scheduled to be heard by the House Appropriations Committee; SB 747 is scheduled to be heard by the House Commerce Committee; HB 1032 is scheduled to be heard by the House Transportation, Highways, and Public Works Committee; HB 642 and HB 656 are scheduled to be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee.

    SCORECARD:
    (Again, a reminder: some numbers will fluctuate because of similar bills being heard, which may make their numbers higher than the numbers listed as “good” or “bad” introduced. If more than one similar bill makes progress, all will be recorded. However, if any ever become legislation, there should be no duplication; only the fate of one of them would be reflected at the end. Also recall that the number of introduced bills will inch up as substitutes are declared of bills that did get filed before the filing deadline.)

    Total House introductions: 1399; total Senate introductions: 754.

    Total House good bills: 32; total Senate good bills: 19.

    Total House bad bills: 19; total Senate bad bills: 22.

    Total House good bills heard in House committee: 47; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 23.

    Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 21; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 22.

    Total House good bills passing committee: 17; total Senate good bills passing committee: 14.

    Total House bad bills passing committee: 10; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 9.

    Total House good bills passing House: 12; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 8.

    Total House bad bills passing House: 4; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 6.

    Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 9; total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 7.

    Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 3; total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 1.

    Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 7; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 6.

    Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 2; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 0.

    Total House good bills passing Senate: 4; total Senate good bills passing House: 2.

    Total House bad bills passing Senate: 1; total Senate bad bills passing House: 0.

    Total House good bills going to the governor: 2; total good Senate bills going to the governor: 1.

    Total House bad bills going to the governor: 0; total bad Senate bills going to the governor: 0.

    31 May 2006

    Committee action, May 31: SB 732, SB 620, SB 707, SB 693

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 732 would change the composition of the board of the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, which is the insurer of last resort in the state. Author Sen. James David Cain, in his testimony in front of the House Insurance Committee argued the changes would make the board more professional and less political in its actions and expenditures. Chiefly bothering proponents was its paying for a lobbyist (a former member of the Legislature who also lobbies for private insurers) and generally that it was too politically connected in its potential competition with other insurers. After amendments, the bill was reported favorably by consent.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 620 and SB 707, both by Sen. Edward Murray, attempt to tighten restrictions and penalties concerning disputes between insurers and consumers. They argued there was too much room to absolve themselves of paying claims, or not enough incentives to in good faith settle or negotiate. Opponents objected to the broadening redefintion of terms such as “bad faith” and allowing third-party claimants. They said current laws and penalties were adequate and that these pieces of legislation would drive up prices through increased numbers of lawsuits and simultaneously discourage writing policies in the state.

    SB 620 was reported favorably by a 10-4 vote, after an amendment that would have weakened the application of penalties failed by one vote with Democrats voting against and Republicans in favor (although two Republicans absent, Reps. Tom McVea and Jim Tucker, might have swung it the other way).

    Supporters said these protections were necessary for consumers. Concerning SB 707, Rep. Cedric Richmond said the bill only brought fairness to the process. But Rep. Shirley Bowler thought the provisions of this bill would negate the “no pay, no play” philosophy prevalent in Louisiana insurance legislation that would encourage suits the consequences of which could create huge expenses for insurers in many areas.

    For SB 707, Vice Chairman Taylor Townsend suggested amending out the third-party claimant portion might overcome opponents’ objections. However, supporters said these objections were overblown. They brought a number of witnesses and their lawyers, the latter of who said additional teeth were necessary to make insurers (interestingly, most stories concerned the state-owned Citizens) pay up on asserted legitimate claims they alleged were being denied.

    Tucker, returned from a Senate committee, argued the bill went too far, that it was really a problem of individual insurance companies that needed to be overseen more effectively. The bill’s approach, he argued, would inflate costs because it would make it easier to introduce legal expenses into the process.

    Townsend did offer an amendment he said would allow only those with some connection, first parties, to the claim could bring action. It was adopted by consent. Rep. Troy Hebert offered an amendment to make remove catch-all language describing bad faith behavior, saying they needed to balance between punishing legitimately bad behavior but also to discourage frivolous actions that could affect availability of insurance. It was adopted by consent.

    Richmond moved to report the bill, arguing it would make only bad-faith insurers leaving the state while helping those in need. Johns offered a motion to defer. This time, with all members present a straight party-line vote of the 10 Republicans passed this motion over the objections of the 8 Democrats, thus involuntarily deferring the bill.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 693 would remove the requirement that insurance companies could increase rates by as much as10 percent higher without Insurance Rating Commission approval. Author Robert Adley confessed his bill “didn’t look too good” after the discussion on the previous ones, but said in the new realities of the post-disaster environment meant the Commission should look at every rate increase request, because over time they can accumulate to high relative levels of increases.

    Rep. Ronnie Johns pointed out that the flex-band policy actually encouraged lower rates, because companies were not afraid that, if conditions changed from those that allowed them to reduce rates, that then they couldn’t raise rates later under adverse conditions, “because there’s not a more political board in this state” than the Commission, he argued. This made for increased competition, thus lower rates.

    Adley argued nonadmitted (that is, not state-guaranteed in case of insolvency) already were providing competition because of lower rates. But Johns said that was fine if you were foolish enough to take that chance, you could. He also pointed out that the existing process was open and documented. Adley said the flex-band cutoff was meaningless because of the Citizens Corp. assessment being passed on to consumers with policies for admitted companies, so why not have the Commission review everything?

    Rep. Dale Erdey said experience and research showed the flex-band procedure worked to lower rates. In fact, in all areas but property and casualty, there was no regulation so this would be a step backwards. He echoed Johns’ comments about how even this session a bill had advanced to get rid of the Commission (the only such body in all 50 states) which he saw as a benefit.

    Opponents testified about the anti-competitive nature of the measure. Adley said he’d done what he could to decrease rates. Tucker moved to defer the bill, the motion passing 12-4 with some Democrats joining all Republicans voting for this. “Closer than I thought,” Adley joked.

    THURSDAY: HB 145 is scheduled to be heard by the House Committee of Labor and Industrial Relations.

    QUOTE OF THE DAY:
    We can get a thousand insurance companies in here tomorrow, if we didn’t make them pay claims.
    Richmond, in response to insurance industry representatives saying SB 707 would discourage companies coming to Louisiana, to applause.

    As you known, Rep. [John] Alario is pretty good at shooting down good ideas that the [Blanco] Administration doesn’t like.
    Tucker, noting the protectiveness of the budget bill by its House sponsor, when saying the proper solution to rate increases was using nonrecurring additional revenues to make up for Citizens’ insurance losses, not by passing them along to ratepayers.

    28 May 2006

    Legislative regular session through May 26

    This week will be slower with Memorial Day on Monday and with a Republican fundraiser on Tuesday.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 58 with minor amendments passed House; HB 108 with minor amendments was reported directly to the Senate; HB 109 with minor amendments was reported directly to the Senate; HB 760 with minor amendments passed Senate; HB 850 was reported directly to the Senate; HB 909 with major amendments was reported directly to the Senate; HB 992 with minor amendments was reported directly to the Senate; SB 1 with minor amendments passed House; SB 25 passed House committee; SB 681 passed House committee.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 1028 with minor amendments passed committee; HB 1129 with minor amendment passed Senate committee; HB 1130 with minor amendment passed House and was reported directly to the Senate; SB 98 was reported favorably by committee; SB 613 passed Senate.

    SCORECARD:
    (Again, a reminder: some numbers will fluctuate because of similar bills being heard, which may make their numbers higher than the numbers listed as “good” or “bad” introduced. If more than one similar bill makes progress, all will be recorded. However, if any ever become legislation, there should be no duplication; only the fate of one of them would be reflected at the end. Also recall that the number of introduced bills will inch up as substitutes are declared of bills that did get filed before the filing deadline.)

    Total House introductions: 1398; total Senate introductions: 752.

    Total House good bills: 32; total Senate good bills: 19.

    Total House bad bills: 19; total Senate bad bills: 22.

    Total House good bills heard in House committee: 46; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 23.

    Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 21; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 22.

    Total House good bills passing committee: 17; total Senate good bills passing committee: 14.

    Total House bad bills passing committee: 10; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 9.

    Total House good bills passing House: 12; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 8.

    Total House bad bills passing House: 3; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 5.

    Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 8; total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 6.

    Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 3; total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 1.

    Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 7; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 5.

    Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 2; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 0.

    Total House good bills passing Senate: 2; total Senate good bills passing House: 1

    Total House bad bills passing Senate: 0; total Senate bad bills passing House: 0

    Total House good bills going to the governor: 1; total good Senate bills going to the governor: 0

    Total House bad bills going to the governor: 1; total bad Senate bills going to the governor: 0

    24 May 2006

    Floor action, May 24: HB 1130, SB 347, SB 700, HB 685

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 1130 unexpectedly popped up on the Senate floor when Sen. Tom Schedler had it declared a duplicate of his SB 665 after getting conforming amendments in place. It occurred without objection, meaning the bill, which would allow more governments to be created with, among other things, powers to tax, if now passed by the Senate unchanged would go to the governor.

    SB 347, recently overwhelmingly defeated, was up for reconsideration. But its author Sen. Edward Murray pulled it back to the calendar, almost certainly ending its advancement this session.

    SB 700 apparently still has a paucity of support. It was a special order for the day but its author Sen. Charles Jones postponed it another week.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 685 would force, after a certain amount is produced annually, ethanol or other renewable fuel sources to be included in gasoline at least at the 2 percent level of the total. Sen. Ben Nevers handled the bill, reminding the body of high oil prices that might be ameliorated by this bill (even though opponents in committee had argued otherwise).

    Sen. Robert Barham said Louisiana was placed well to benefit from production of these renewable sources. He also offered an amendment that did not allow regulations to mandate who did or did not have to sell it, being as the Department of Agriculture had done this in the past. Nevers objected, saying the bill did not specify who could make such regulations. Barham’s response was that the bill as presently constituted did not provide enough protections to let the market decide things. This amendment failed 12-24.

    Barham next tried amendments that would create more leeway statutorily for supplier compliance. Nevers said government bodies should make those calls. These amendments succeeded 18-17. He also offered amendments to clarify how the counting of production occurs which would matter in terms of when implementation would occur. Nevers objected by saying it would be another tactic to delay implementation, arguing the bill was written correctly to prevent premature implementation. These amendments failed 9-27.

    Sen. Walter Boasso also was accused by Nevers as trying to delay by making the standards require production 18 months after hitting the target instead of 6 months. Boasso argued it took time for infrastructure to develop. Nevers said the infrastructure already was in place and delay could not be afforded. His amendment failed 13-23.

    In closing, Nevers stressed the bill would alleviate high fuel costs, create business in the state, and help the environment. The bill passed 32-4.

    THURSDAY: SB 98 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY
    He’s going to lose 20 pounds before this is all over.
    Barham, talking about the furious Agriculture Department lobbying against his HB 685 amendments.

    I love you guys …. Since I’m on a roll, why don’t you pick one?
    Barham, after his second set of amendments narrowly passed, and was asked what amendments next to present.