21 July 2007

Legislative regular session wrapup and rankings: Senate members and governor

This week is the second part of revealing the 2007 Louisiana Legislature scorecard, ranking each member on an ideology scale. The lowest score of 0 represents extreme liberalism/populism from a legislator, while a score of 100 shows the most conservative/reformer sentiment.

Important votes where there was an ideological issue at stake and where there was some minimal lack of consensus in the vote were chosen, each for members of the House, the Senate, and for the governor. This year’s choices particularly were challenging since there was less division than usual especially in the Senate because of the tremendous budgetary surplus. This week’s edition reviews the Senate and Governor Kathleen Blanco; listed here are the key votes assessed and their weighings, given to the relative importance of the vote compared to others in the session (unless noted, vote is for final passage prior to any conference):

  • HB 25 (5 percent) – broadens the women’s “right to know” provisions in pre-natal counseling to include information that the fetus may feel pain if aborted. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.
  • HB 407 (5 percent) – continues adding an extra fee onto drivers’ licenses for litter reduction. Voting “no” is conservative/reform.
  • HB 436 (5 percent) – reforms the indigent defense system to make it more efficient and cost-effective. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.
  • SB 195 (5 percent) – attempts to privatize the state-owned insurer. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.
  • SCR 76 (20 percent) – votes to approve a large amount of spending on the rebuilding of the Medical Center of Louisiana New Orleans. Voting “no” is conservative/reform.
  • HCR 10 second vote (20 percent) – vote to exceed the state’s constitutional spending cap. Voting “no” is conservative/reform.
  • SB 22 (10 percent) – would have relaxed the almost-impossible recall petition standards for elected officials. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.
  • SB 40 (10 percent) – would have relaxed ethics standards relative to casting votes. Voting “no” is conservative/reform.
  • SB 320 (10 percent) – would have relaxed ballot security standards for elections. Voting “no” is conservative/reform.
  • SB 365 – (10 percent) – would have changed capital budgeting procedures to bring more transparency and efficiency to the outlay process. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.

    (As always, if a senator asked for leave, as did occur on several occasions, the score was adjusted for that. If leave was not asked for, it was counted as a vote not for the conservative/reform side.)

    And thus the ranking is:
    Quinn 100 Republican
    Cassidy 95 Republican
    Michot 88 Republican
    Lentini 84 Republican
    Malone 75 Republican
    Romero, C 70 Republican
    Schedler 68 Republican
    Barham 65 Republican
    Hollis 65 Republican
    Kostelka 60 Republican
    Amedee 56 Democrat
    Ullo 55 Democrat
    Adley 50 Democrat
    Mount 50 Democrat
    Chaisson 45 Democrat
    McPherson 45 Democrat
    Nevers 45 Democrat
    Cain 40 Republican
    Cheek 40 Republican
    Ellington 40 Democrat
    Smith, M 40 Democrat
    Theunissen 40 Republican
    Dupre 35 Democrat
    Gautreaux, N 35 Democrat
    Jones 35 Democrat
    Murray 35 Democrat
    Shepherd 33 Democrat
    Boasso 31 Democrat
    Cravins 31 Democrat
    Duplessis 31 Democrat
    Fontenot 30 Republican
    Gautreaux, B 30 Democrat
    Broome 25 Democrat
    Fields 25 Democrat
    Jackson, L 25 Democrat
    Marionneaux 20 Democrat
    Heitmeier 15 Democrat
    Bajoie 6 Democrat
    Hines 5 Democrat

    It’s difficult to make comparisons because of the different kinds of instruments and weighings used, but with that in mind, the Senate actually turned up a little less liberal/populist than the House, with an average score around 44. As in the House, a big difference emerged between Republicans and Democrats, with the typical Republican scoring a 70 and the typical Democrat a 23. Sen. Julie Quinn got the only ultimate conservative/reformer score of 100, while Pres. Don Hines nearly did the opposite, recording a score of 5. The highest Democrat score was a 56, exceeding only four Republicans.

    And, finally, on to Gov. Blanco. She was graded on HB 25 (10 percent), HB 407 (15 percent), HB 436 (10 percent), SB 195 (10 percent), and four other bills:
  • HB 273 (15 percent) – weakens campaign finance laws by allowing candidates not to report their own contributions to their candidacies
  • HB 960 (10 percent) – abolishes the Insurance Rating Commission
  • SB 1 (15 percent) – makes cosmetic changes to indigent health care by the state
  • SB 341 (15 percent) – allows non-taxpayers to receive state tax dollars just for filing

    A perfect conservative/reform score would be for her to sign HB 25, HB 436, HB 960, and SB 195, while vetoing HB 273, HB 407, SB 1, and SB 341. She signed all of them except SB 195 giving her a score of 30, not much above the Democrat average for the House and the Senate, although again different indicators were used making comparisons inexact.
  • 14 July 2007

    Legislative regular session wrapup and rankings: House members

    This week is the first part of revealing the 2007 Louisiana Legislature scorecard, ranking each member on an ideology scale. The lowest score of 0 represents extreme liberalism/populism from a legislator, while a score of 100 shows the most conservative/reformer sentiment.

    Important votes where there was an ideological issue at stake and where there was some minimal lack of consensus in the vote were chosen, each for members of the House, the Senate, and for the governor. This year’s choices particularly were challenging since there was less division than usual especially in the Senate because of the tremendous budgetary surplus. This week’s edition reviews the House; listed here are the key votes assessed and their weighings, given to the relative importance of the vote compared to others in the session (unless noted, vote is for final passage prior to any conference):

  • HB 25 (5 percent) – broadens the women’s “right to know” provisions in pre-natal counseling to include information that the fetus may feel pain if aborted. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.
  • HB 407 (5 percent) – continues adding an extra fee onto drivers’ licenses for litter reduction. Voting “no” is conservative/reform.
  • HB 436 (5 percent) – reforms the indigent defense system to make it more efficient and cost-effective. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.
  • SB 195 (5 percent) – attempts to privatize the state-owned insurer. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.
  • SCR 76 (10 percent) – votes to approve a large amount of spending on the rebuilding of the Medical Center of Louisiana New Orleans. Voting “no” is conservative/reform.
  • HCR 10 second vote (15 percent) – vote to exceed the state’s constitutional spending cap. Voting “no” is conservative/reform.
  • HB 1 vote A11 (15 percent) – would have allowed state spending to use only 23 percent of the surplus. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.
  • HB 1 vote A10B (15 percent) – would have stripped the bill of funding any vacant positions in state government. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.
  • HB 1 vote A8C (15 percent) – would have stripped the bill of funding for salary increases for vacant positions in state government. Voting “yes” is conservative/reform.
  • HB 3 second vote for passage (10 percent) – to enable debt selling which conservatives/reformers had resisted in order to force compromise on less spending in HB 1. Voting “no” is conservative/reform.

    (As always, if a representative asked for leave the score was adjusted for that. If leave was not asked for, it was counted as a vote not for the conservative/reform side. Also, only original votes, not those changed, were used. However, no House member asked for leave or changed these votes.)

  • And so the ranking is:

    Bowler 100 Republican
    Scalise 100 Republican
    Schneider 100 Republican
    Smiley 100 Republican
    Alexander 95 Republican
    Crowe 95 Republican
    Geymann 95 Republican
    Greene 95 Republican
    Lancaster 95 Republican
    Strain 95 Republican
    Trahan 90 Republican
    Tucker 90 Republican
    Walsworth 90 Republican
    Katz 85 Republican
    Lorusso 85 Republican
    Martiny 85 Republican
    Beard 80 Republican
    Kleckley 80 Republican
    Morris 80 Republican
    Powell, M 80 Republican
    Waddell 80 Republican
    Winston 80 Republican
    Burns 75 Republican
    Crane 75 Republican
    Johns 75 Republican
    Morrish 75 Republican
    Toomy 75 Republican
    Dove 70 Republican
    LaBruzzo 70 Republican
    Robideaux 70 Independent
    Wooton 70 Republican
    Erdey 65 Republican
    Smith, JH 65 Republican
    Pitre 60 Republican
    Hutter 55 Republican
    Powell, T 55 Republican
    Lambert 50 Republican
    Ansardi 45 Democrat
    McVea 45 Republican
    Montgomery 45 Republican
    Romero, R 45 Democrat
    Frith 40 Democrat
    Hebert 40 Democrat
    Kennard 35 Republican
    Arnold 30 Democrat
    Daniel 30 Republican
    Downs 30 Republican
    Faucheux 30 Democrat
    Triche 30 Democrat
    White 30 Republican
    Richmond 25 Democrat
    Alario 15 Democrat
    Anders 15 Democrat
    Badon 15 Democrat
    Baldone 15 Democrat
    Barrow 15 Democrat
    Baudoin 15 Democrat
    Carter, R 15 Democrat
    Chandler 15 Democrat
    Dartez 15 Democrat
    Doerge 15 Democrat
    Dorsey 15 Democrat
    Durand 15 Democrat
    Fannin 15 Democrat
    Farrar 15 Democrat
    Guillory, EL 15 Democrat
    Guillory, EJ 15 Democrat
    Guillory, M 15 Democrat
    Heaton 15 Republican
    Hill 15 Democrat
    Kenney 15 Democrat
    LaFleur 15 Democrat
    McDonald 15 Democrat
    Pinac 15 Democrat
    Ritchie 15 Democrat
    Salter 15 Democrat
    Smith. JD 15 Democrat
    St. Germain 15 Democrat
    Thompson 15 Democrat
    Townsend 15 Democrat
    Williams 15 Democrat
    Baylor 10 Democrat
    Bruce 10 Democrat
    Burrell 10 Democrat
    Cazayoux 10 Democrat
    Curtis 10 Democrat
    Damico 10 Democrat
    Gallot 10 Democrat
    Harris 10 Democrat
    Hunter 10 Democrat
    Jefferson-Bullock 10 Democrat
    LaFonta 10 Democrat
    Marchand 10 Democrat
    Morrell 10 Democrat
    Odinet 10 Democrat
    Pierre 10 Democrat
    Smith, G 10 Democrat
    Walker 10 Democrat
    Carter, K 5 Democrat
    DeWitt 5 Democrat
    Gray 5 Democrat
    Honey 5 Democrat
    Jackson, M 5 Democrat
    Quezaire 5 Democrat
    Smith, JR 5 Democrat

  • The House average overall was a shade under 40, while Republicans averaged about 73, and the Democrats’ mean was around 15. It’s worth noting that among the two switchers from Democrat to Republican from last regular session to this, Alex Heaton was the lowest-scoring Republican at the Democrat average, while Billy Montgomery’s 45 tied him for fourth-lowest Republican and would have tied for highest among Democrats.

    Next week’s edition takes a look at senators' and the governor’s scores.

    01 July 2007

    Legislative regular session through Jun. 30

    You can unclench your hands around your wallets, the Legislature is out of session. In a couple of weeks’ time I’ll report on the veto decisions and then give the rankings.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 25 was concurred with by the House and sent to the governor; HB 113 was concurred with by the House and sent to the governor; HB 248 passed the Senate was sent to the governor; HB 365 was passed by the House and sent to the governor; HB 436 with minor amendments was passed by the Senate, was concurred with by the House, and sent to the governor; HB 614 with major amendments was passed by the Senate, concurred with by the House, and sent to the governor; HB 678 with major amendments was passed Senate, rejected by the House, went to conference, and was concurred with by the House and Senate; HB 730 was rejected by the House, went to conference, and was rejected by the House; HB 960 was rejected by the House, went to conference, was concurred with by the House and Senate, and sent to the governor; SB 98 was rejected by the Senate, went to conference, and was concurred with by the Senate and the House; SB 161 with minor amendments passed the House, was concurred with by the Senate, and sent to the governor; SB 195 was rejected by the Senate, went to conference, was concurred with by the Senate and House, and sent to the governor.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 273 was signed by the governor; HB 407 was signed by the governor; HB 962 with minor amendments was passed by the Senate, rejected by the House, went to conference, was concurred with by the House and Senate, and sent to the governor; HB 974 with minor amendments was passed by the Senate, rejected by the House, went to conference, was concurred with by the House and Senate, and sent to the governor; SB 1 was concurred with by House and sent to the governor.

    SCORECARD:
    Total House introductions: 975; total Senate introductions: 365.

    Total House good bills: 33; total Senate good bills: 14.

    Total House bad bills: 13; total Senate bad bills: 8.

    Total House good bills heard in committee: 31; total Senate good bills heard in committee: 14.

    Total House bad bills heard in committee: 11; total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 8.

    Total House good bills passing committee: 15; total Senate good bills passing committee: 9.

    Total House bad bills passing committee: 8; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5.

    Total House good bills passing the House: 14; total Senate good bills passing the Senate: 8.

    Total House bad bills passing the House: 4; total Senate bad bills passing the Senate: 2.

    Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 12; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 5.

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

    Total House good bills passing Senate: 10; total Senate good bills passing House: 3.

    Total House bad bills passing Senate: 4; total Senate bad bills passing House: 1.

    Total House good bills sent to governor: 9; total Senate good bills sent to governor: 3.

    Total House bad bills sent to governor: 4; total Senate bad bills sent to governor: 1.

    Total House bills signed by the governor: 2; total Senate bad bills signed by the governor: 0.

    28 June 2007

    Floor action, Jun. 28: HB 678, SB 153, SB 232

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 678 would give incentives to insurance companies to provide insurance in the state and, as amended, would give tax credits to those paying premiums. Rep. Shirley Bowler, however, objected to the bill’s granting of a catastrophic fund which she said not only had proven to be a failure in Florida, but that the bill’s wording actually wanted to create such a fund. “In no way should it be showing up in a conference report looking for our endorsement,” she said. She said relief would take at least three years to show up so there was no rush to pass this bill, and moved to recommit to conference.

    Author Rep. Karen Carter said the language was only suggesting, not mandatory, and urged rejecting the substitute motion. But Bowler said this change to get rid of the fund was important, not innocuous, and could be eliminated easily before the 6 PM deadline (it was then 4:15 PM). The motion failed 38-54.

    The bill then subsequently passed 81-18.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 153 would give private insurers the chance to buy bits and pieces of the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation business. It was amended in conference to delay its implementation until SB 195 had a chance to operate, which would sell the entire book of business.

    The report was adopted 98-0.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 232 would cerate a structure by which private nonprofit organizations could be paid to counsel individuals about the Road Home program. A dispute arose over the conference committee stripping out an amendment, objected to by the Senate, by Rep. Pete Schneider that would have prohibited legislators’ family members from benefiting monetarily from the arrangement. Handler Rep. Jalila Jefferson-Bullock said the concern was that member of legislators families would not get Road Home money. But Rep. Hunter Greene pointed out the bill had nothing to do with the actual receipt of the money.

    Schneider pointed out that this could become a vehicle for corruption and asked for indefinite postponement. Jefferson argued it facilitated housing assistance and that Schneider’s request “pandered to fear.” But Rep. Steve Scalise said the amendment was not overbroad and was very specific, saying it applied only to elected officials and their immediate families as already defined through the ethics code.

    Schneider said the Legislature had to appear absolutely above board on this issue, and wanted a substitute motion to indefinitely postpone. That motion failed 45-53. Rep. Cedric Richmond then said he wanted to defend Jefferson against cheap shots and thought it was a good bill. It passed 63-32.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 678 made it to the Senate. Sen. Butch Gautreaux wanted to know the practical effect of having his amendment being stripped out which guaranteed 75 percent of the business done would be residential, and was told that business done would tend to mostly take care of residential business, a statement he did not find particularly compelling.

    Nevertheless, the report was adopted 30-8.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    No, I don’t want to go into detail about this. All I want to say about it is it involved a gift presented by Rep. Jeff Arnold involving the outgoing “dean” of the Westbank delegation, Rep. John Alario, and the new one, Rep. John LaBruzzo, and the name of disgraced former House member Tommy Wright was brought up first in terms of how the gift looked, and then intimation concerning the gift related to reasons why Wright left the house; Wright was accused of soliciting a sex act from a male, and plead guilty to flight from an officer. It managed to be humorous yet juvenile at the same time.

    Maybe’s he’s having a senior moment.
    Rep. Juan LaFonta saying Schneider should know that SB 232 would not invite corruption.

    It would help to vote your machines if you were in your seats.
    Speaker Joe Salter.

    27 June 2007

    Floor action, Jun. 27: HR 69, HR 75, HR 116

    DID YOU KNOW?
    Because of the vicissitudes of the flow of business between chambers, especially when conference committees are involving many senators, the members of the chambers tend to work on some internal housekeeping and engage in moments of jocularity in the last couple of days of the session.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HR 69 would require more information to be provided in amendments to non-state entities to the general appropriations. Rep. Blade Morrish said it would provide more insight into the process.

    Rep. John Alario pointed out that, as the resolution stood, noncompliance by the Senate with this would kill the annual HB 1. Rep. Steve Scalise noted that it was much like Morrish’s HB 266. But Rep. Charlie DeWitt faulted the resolution for not bringing in the Senate – even though the Senate had failed to act on HB 266. Morrish pointed out that all the resolution asked for was more information. “It’s not an undue burden, just a simple ask for information.” He did admit that it could create logistical problems.

    Alario then offered amendments to limit the resolution’s affect only to House amendments, by allowing two-thirds of the House to waive having the Senate do so. Alario said the resolution would make this kind of information available which he said had been intended in the past but was ruled not possible. The amendments were adopted without objection.

    Rep. Jack Smith cautioned about this and other rules changes, saying a bunch of people leaving were making these and that they ought to wait on a new Legislature to make such decisions. But Rep. Ronnie Johns saw nothing wrong with the idea and it being done now.

    The resolution passed 91-10.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HR 75 would have changed the way conference committees would have operated, principally making them meet in the open. But author William Daniel IV decided to withdraw the resolution but said he hoped something like it would be considered in the future and apply to both chambers.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HR 116 would allow the state to sell out its annuity stream as a result of a lawsuit settlement with tobacco manufacturers, a motion that has generated great controversy. It was pulled by Alario.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    Must have took mine out of there on purpose.
    Rep. Troy Hebert, when he found his folder with Senate amendments after claiming he didn’t know where they were.

    And, sorry, nobody else can join me on the podium.
    Rep. Nick Lorusso, when introducing the New Orleans’ Saints dance team, the Saint-Sations.

    I was just looking for Rep. Lorusso’s wife … I know she’s around the chamber somewhere.
    Rep. Karen Carter's response

    Mr. Speaker, can we get some order over here. It looks like those ladies are getting attacked
    It doesn’t look like Mr. Gallot is in attack mode.
    Rep. Charmaine Marchand after the group left the podium, with Speaker Joe Salter’s reply.

    Mr. Alario, why do you rise?
    I was hoping you’d say that, Mr. Speaker.
    Mark up one for Alario.
    Alario to Salter during a moment of tedium.

    25 June 2007

    Floor action, Jun. 25: SB 161, HB 614, HB 962, HB 495

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 14 got deferred and is subject to call, meaning supporters of the controversial bill which would take away the sole power of the state Treasurer to set the State Bond Commission’s agenda did not have the votes to assure its passage in the House at the time.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 161 would ban partial birth abortions and punish doctors who do so and create legal actions for wrongful death – the difference between this and HB 614 which in this would allow the mother to sue if wrongfully done. An oversight in wording sent the bill back to the calendar to cook up an amendment.

    Moments later, it was back and changed. The bill passed 98-1.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 614, moments later in the Senate, was passed over as a result.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 962 would allow the state-owned insurer Citizens Property Insurance Corporation to charge rates comparable to the private sector’s in parishes deemed “noncompetitive” in provision of homeowner insurers, instead of its mandated 10 percent markup. The bill was amended by handler state Sen. Don Cravins to allow the state auditor easier access to the records of Citizens. The bill passed 35-1.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    During debate on HB 459, Sen. Rob Marionneaux complained that the House was failing to move on Senate bills that had a fiscal impact, and proposed returning every House bill that had a fiscal note to the calendar starting with this one. The motion failed.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 495 would give income tax breaks to “artists.” Sen. Willie Mount handled it and said it would create a better climate for art production and would “bring talent home.” The definition of “art” already has been set by the state. She said the $7.5 million lost in revenue should be offset over a $195 million industry.

    Sen. Art Lentini asked whether one had to be a full-time artist, apparently not. He wondered whether the state had the ability to do accurate audits on all of this and though it likely much fraud would be involved. Mount said it could be declared on if also declared on federal income tax forms. Lentini pressed on what documentation could prove this income existed as art, didn’t know of any, and expressed great doubt these transactions could be accurately tracked and verified.

    Marionneaux blasted the bill, saying it singled out a special class of people when others he named he said deserved such breaks far more. He implied these breaks would disproportionately favor the wealthier and wondered why not remove income tax liability from the poorest taxpayers. “If you design Gucci purses, you get it. This isn’t what we ought to be doing.” Sen. Max Malone claimed the bill would extend itself to “media,” including broadcast media.

    Mount reemphasized the measure would apply only to art sold and asked for passage. After a quorum call, the bill failed 18-20.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    And the reporters here [in the press gallery] say they’re going down a quarter?
    Sen. James David Cain, when asking about HB 386 that would remove any satte sales taxes from selling newspapers.

    I nominate this bill as the worst bill of the session…. It’s the Edsel of the session.
    Sen. Ken Hollis on HB 484 which would allow bars to hold poker tournaments as long as they derive no income from them – and apparently was convincing enough to return the bill to the calendar.

    22 June 2007

    Legislative regular session through Jun. 23

    THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 25 with minor amendments passed the Senate; HB 113 with minor amendments passed Senate committee and passed the Senate; HB 248 passed committee; HB 365 with major amendments passed the House, with major amendments passed Senate committee and passed the Senate; HB 436 had rules suspended to pass Senate committee; HB 474 passed Senate and goes to the governor; HB 614 with major amendments passed Senate committee; HB 678 with mnor amendments passed Senate committee; HB 704 with minor amendments passed the Senate; HB 730 with minor amendments passed the Senate; HB 960 with minor amendments passed Senate; SB 98 passed House committee and with major amendments the House; SB 127 passed House committee and with minor amendments passed the House; SB 161 passed House committee; SB 195 with major amendment passed the House.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 273 passed the Senate and goes to the governor; HB 407 passed the Senate; HB 962 passed Senate committee; SB 1 passed House committee and the House; SB 14 passed House committee; SB 320 failed to pass the Senate.

    SCORECARD:
    Total House introductions: 975; total Senate introductions: 365.

    Total House good bills: 33; total Senate good bills: 14.

    Total House bad bills: 13; total Senate bad bills: 8.

    Total House good bills heard in committee: 31; total Senate good bills heard in committee: 14.

    Total House bad bills heard in committee: 11; total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 8.

    Total House good bills passing committee: 15; total Senate good bills passing committee: 9.

    Total House bad bills passing committee: 8; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5.

    Total House good bills passing the House: 14; total Senate good bills passing the Senate: 8.

    Total House bad bills passing the House: 4; total Senate bad bills passing the Senate: 2.

    Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 12; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 5.

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

    Total House good bills passing Senate: 6; total Senate good bills passing House: 3.

    Total House bad bills passing Senate: 2; total Senate bad bills passing House: 1.

    Total House good bills sent to governor: 1; total Senate good bills sent to governor: 0.

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

    Floor action, Jun. 22: SB 1, SB 223

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 1 would vaguely enable the state to marginally tinker with its delivery of health care to the indigent. It would implement cost-saving technology, put together groups to study health care, and reorganize the charity system to create “medical homes.” It would require the federal government to approve of a pilot program. It passed 101-0.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 223 would raise the minimum coverage levels for automobile insurance. Handler Rep. Danny Martiny said it was 23 years since rates were raised and costs for repair and medicine had gone up considerably. In fact, he wanted to remove previous amendments that had lowered them. But Rep. Shirley Bowler objected, saying this would price poorer people out of the insurance and thus car market, and that Martiny’s $17 a month estimated increase was an understatement given that claims would increase and these costs would be passed along.

    Rep. Ronnie Johns brought other statistics to show that rate was much higher for some kinds of drivers. He said it would increase the number of uninsured drivers on the road. But Rep. Damon Baldone asked whether raising coverage might lower costs in other areas, such as recouping medical expenses; Johns replied others would go up also, like attorney fees. Rep. Mike Powell said that unless limits are higher, more costs are paid by others to insure others that did not have adequate limits, so somebody pays regardless and it might as well be those who cause accidents. The question finally called on the amendment, which was adopted 72-26.

    After a technical amendment, Rep. Nick Lorusso offered an amendment to phase in the adoption of the higher rates. Martiny objected, saying the bill just had been brought back into its original limits and said the problem of lower limits should be dealt with immediately without a lot of hassle that a phase-in would cause. Lorusso said it would buy time to better figure out rates. The amendment failed 27-67.

    Shortly thereafter the entire question was called, and the bill passed 77-24.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    Hard to believe, but, yes, I care for poor people.
    Bowler, not long after musing it was unusual for a suburban conservative Republican to come out defending the right of poor people to own cars and drive them.

    We should call Rep. Martiny’s amendment the “Ronnie Johns Pay Raise” amendment.
    Johns, an insurance agent, when arguing against higher limits.

    20 June 2007

    Floor action, Jun. 20: SB 341, HB 365

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 341 would offer a five percent tax credit of the federal earned income tax credit to be applied on state income taxes. An amendment from the Senate lowered the amount from five percent to 3.5, which handler Rep. Taylor Townsend, who had his own version, said would bring them in line, dropping the recurring cost to $40 million.

    Rep. Mike Powell asked whether it was possible that the state would pay out money to people who did not pay state income taxes. Townsend conceded this was possible for those who owed federal tax. Powell noted that this was not a refund, but rather the state giving money to these filers who paid no state income tax, a state expenditure.

    The bill passed 90-12.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 365 would allow for a two-year phase-in of tax deductions for charitable donations and home mortgage interest, among other things, which would be 57.5 percent of for federal “excess” tax deductions, once amended by Townsend.

    Rep. Steve Scalise wanted the proportion to go to 100 percent. But Townsend argued this amendment’s increase would not be responsible. “We can’t bankrupt the state, we have to have a balanced budget,” he said. He said there would be plenty of benefits from “investments” in the appropriations bills that would make up for not getting greater tax relief. “Let’s remain calm and under control,” he said.

    Rep Eric LaFleur then asked to end consideration of amendments, followed by Rep. Cedric Richmond who, in a tongue-tied fashion, called the entire question which failed 43-56. Then the vote on the amendment to end consideration of amendments passed 50-48, leaving only Scalise’s amendment alive.

    Scalise argued that not even $200 million in tax relief, despite a huge budget surplus, was being given at present and this was driving people from the state. He thought the Senate would increase it anyway. “Let’s give real tax relief,” he said. The amendment passed 51-48, and the bill subsequently passed 102-0.

    THURSDAY: SB 145 is scheduled to be heard by the House and Governmental Affairs Committee.

    19 June 2007

    Committee action, Jun. 19: SB 14, HB 113, HB 127, HB 614

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 14 would allow the presiding officers and Treasurer to set up the agenda of the meetings of the State Bond Commission, and that a majority of the members could put an item on the agenda. Speaker Joe Salter told the House Ways and Means Committee the rotating chairmanship idea had been removed.

    Rep. Billy Montgomery moved passage, but Treasurer John Kennedy wanted to speak in opposition. Kennedy said to vote against it because it would turn the agenda of the commission over to the governor, who directly or indirectly controls the majority of votes on the commission and with her other powers gives too much fiscal power to her. He also said through its staff the Legislature already was involved in agenda-setting. He added that during his chairmanship of the commission that the only item he never put an item on an agenda when requested was consideration of the Bunkie sugar mill because its application was too sketchy, but then called a special meeting to consider after more information came through. (Senate Pres. Don Hines authored the bill after Kennedy had delayed the placement of the item, whose family had a financial interest in the mill).

    Montgomery said he thought an arrangement had been worked out among all concerned but Kennedy said he knew nothing of that. In closing, Salter said he thought the same thing. He said it had nothing to do with the mill, and lauded Kennedy as a treasurer, except as head of the Commission. “I think he has abused his authority … on more than one occasion,” he charged. All the bill does, he argued, was open up the agenda-setting process.

    Chairman Rep. Taylor Townsend said the mill issue may be confusing the issue, but that the bill was a separate issue. Rep. Cedric Richmond wanted to know how many blacks were on the Commission; Salter said presently none.

    The bill was passed without objection.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 113 would make it easier to prosecute organized theft rings. Author state Rep. Mike Powell told the Senate Judiciary C Committee that these gangs steal small-valued items that then resell them, often out of the country. The problem is separately the items are petty which makes prosecuting difficult, but together they add up to significant losses to retailers and consumers. This would be different from shoplifting because the “fencing” would be the object of the law. This would be a felony, as was widely supported by law enforcement. The bill passed without objection.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 127 is for a Constitutional amendment to ensure there is adequate funding for any increase in retirement benefits before they can be granted. House Civil Law and Procedure Committee Chairman Rep. Glenn Ansardi said it was in front of the committee to check on its ballot language (since voters must approve of it) and, after a moment, it was determined that Vice Chairman Rep. Ronnie Johns would present the bill. Ansardi asked how was the language and Johns said it was fine. He then moved for its passage without objection, and that’s what happened.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 614 would criminalize abortionists who perform partial-birth abortions. Author Rep. Gary Beard said to the Senate Judiciary A Committee the bill tracked the federal law upheld recently by the U.S. Supreme Court. He said a state law was necessary for vigorous enforcement because it would allow state district attorneys, elected by the people, in addition to appointed U.S. district attorneys, to prosecute and that it would more clearly cover instances where state lines weren’t crossed. It was like SB 161 by Sen. Ben Nevers in most respects. Rep. Steve Scalise said this act happened 400 times in Louisiana last year.

    Supporters noted the bill was consistent with studies and endorsements that showed abortion of this kind often harmed women’s health and not doing it did not threaten their health and definitively was infanticide. Chairman Sen. Art Lenitni wondered about some of the technical legal procedure aspects of the bill, but supporters assured that they did not impair successful implementation of the bill.

    Opponents argued that the bill endangered women’s health, and said the recent decision was a mistake, and that federal law was more than enough and could do nothing more. Serious abortion control, it was asserted, would be to work with agencies dealing with contraception and education.

    After rounding up a quorum, an amendment was offered by Sen. Nick Gautreaux that basically would have HB 25 amended into the bill which adds to the informed consent law, that said the fetus has the capacity to feel pain although this did not have consensus in the scientific community and give the mother the opportunity to see a sonogram of the unborn – an approach consistent with other U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Beard spoke to say he while he favored both bills, from a standpoint of passing both bills, he wasn’t so sure they should be joined as the amendment broadened the scope of the bill as HB 25 covered all abortions. But at the same time, supporters said, increasing information might head off potential lawsuits about lack of informed consent.

    Opponents said there was no consensus on the pain issue and accused supporters of “playing politics.” Also noted was that pain medications would increase costs of abortions and could increase risks for women.

    Gautreaux moved adoption and were without objection. Beard closed by saying protecting life and liberty were important objectives of the bill. Without objection, it was reported favorably.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    That’s how you get the hook into us ….
    Townsend, when Sen. Sharon Weston Broome wanted to talk about another item that would come in front of the committee after the committee has discussed one of her items that was on the agenda, even as Townsend’s plan was to delay it until later in the week.

    Thanks for recognizing I had a good bill
    Townsend, when a witness plumped for support of his bill by saying it was modeled after one of Townsend’s.

    Uh-huh … lawyers aren’t that bright. We need to be economists.
    Lawyer Rep. Rick Farrar ,when an economist testified he made $15,000 to produce a study that ended up backing the bill for which he was testifying.

    WEDNESDAY: SB 161 is scheduled to be heard by the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee.

    15 June 2007

    Legislative regular session through Jun. 16

    NOTE: HB 678, which started out originally as a bill that would provide monetary incentive for insurers to write policies in the state through a state subsidy program, was amended to bring in the idea behind SB 195, privatizing homeowners insurance written by the state. As such, the bill now merits placement into the Good category.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 25 with minor amendments was passed by Senate committee; HB 248 had rules suspended for favorable report to the Senate; HB 474 had rules suspended for favorable report to the Senate; HB 623 was involuntarily deferred by committee; HB 678 passed Senate committee; HB 704 with minor amendments passed Senate committee; HB 722 with minor amendments passed the House; HB 730 with minor amendments passed Senate committee; HB 960 with minor amendments passed Senate committee; SB 161 passed the Senate; SB 365 passed the Senate.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 273 had rules suspended for favorable report to the Senate; HB 974 passed the House.

    SCORECARD:
    Total House introductions: 975; total Senate introductions: 365.

    Total House good bills: 32; total Senate good bills: 13.

    Total House bad bills: 13; total Senate bad bills: 8.

    Total House good bills heard in committee: 30; total Senate good bills heard in committee: 13.

    Total House bad bills heard in committee: 11; total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 8.

    Total House good bills passing committee: 14; total Senate good bills passing committee: 7.

    Total House bad bills passing committee: 8; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5.

    Total House good bills passing the House: 12; total Senate good bills passing the Senate: 6.

    Total House bad bills passing the House: 4; total Senate bad bills passing the Senate: 2.

    Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 8; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 1.

    Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 2; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 1.

    MONDAY: SB 1 and SB 98 are scheduled to be heard by the House Appropriations Committee; HB 436 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Finance Committee; HB 407 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee.

    TUESDAY: HB 113 is scheduled to be heard in Senate Judiciary Committee C.

    13 June 2007

    Committee action, Jun. 13: HB 860, HB 25

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 860 would abolish the Louisiana Insurance Rating Commission and in its place would create a position in the Insurance Department to be a consumer watchdog. Insurance Commissioner James Donelon said to the Senate Insurance Committee that the presence of a political body decreased the potential for competition that could lower rates, and the new position would serve as the consumer advocate.

    Sen. Art Lentini thought this new position was inconsistent with general separation of powers in the provision that allowed only the Legislature to fire the advocate, saying a firing could be done by the commissioner for “cause.” But Donelon objected, saying the “cause” requirement was too limiting and said the electorate would pass judgment on whether his reasons for a personnel action in this instance were valid. Lentini said the nature of election meant there could be favoritism involved, but Donelon said no other officials had to suffer such a requirement, and called the amendment “unconstitutional.”

    Sen. Bob Kostelka asked why not remove the cause requirement and then have a report that could be sent to the Legislature on it automatically in the case of a firing. He pointed out the attorney general under existing law still could do the same watchdog function and bring complaints. But the amendment was as adopted with the cause requirement.

    Another amendment would undo a House floor provision which removed an exemption for commercial insurance writers from filing anything more than an informational document when business involved was greater than $10,000 in premiums, inadvertently amended out and existing in current law. It was adopted without objection, followed by the bill’s passage without objection.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 25 would require doctors to give certain information to women contemplating having an abortion which goes into a booklet already required in these cases. Author state Rep. A. G. Crowe told the Senate Health and Welfare Committee that it says the unborn will feel pain and while there is no established consensus at when, the most popular figure is used, 20 weeks after gestation. He also said that it would let women know that they could have an ultrasound and view it. Crowe offered evidence that pain would be felt at 20 weeks, and it can be felt significantly for some time.

    Sen. Lydia Jackson wanted offered some amendments that would also give information about pain, and that this would be reviewed by state medical professionals to ensure it is “factually-based” and “balanced.” After a slight revision to include a medical ethics profession on the review board, they were adopted.

    Many of the usual suspects who had opposed to bill throughout reiterated their opposition, that the information that would be in should be accurate, and basically said the amendment made the bill less objectionable. The bill was reported without objection.

    Afterwards, Sen. Joel Chiasson complained that a group of the bill’s supporters had accused him of leaving the room on a previous debate on the bill in the committee; Crowe recalled that Chiasson had been there. This provoked committee Chairman Joe McPherson to want the group’s representative to apologize to the committee, asked Crowe to facilitate that, and insinuated that the bill’s passage would be rougher without that. Crowe said it was regrettable something like that would happen.

    QUOTE OF THE DAY
    The most common word used around here is “but” … “I’d support your bill, but …”
    McPherson, when senators bandied about what they thought was the most common word used in Senate debating

    12 June 2007

    Floor action, Jun. 12: HB 347, HB 722

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 347 would double, or more, reimbursement for poll workers. Author Rep. Rick Gallot said it had been many years since these workers had gotten a raise and this could solve the problem of a shortage of them. Nobody has anything to say about it and it passed unanimously among those who were present.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 722 would direct taxes gathered from transportation items to be spent on building roads and other transportation needs. Author Rep. Roy Quezaire said it would be a start to solve transportation infrastructure needs, giving most of these funds to roads construction, starting Jul. 1, 2008.

    Rep. Joel Robideaux offered amendments that tracked his bill, which would allow parishes to decide how money got spent on which priority projects rather than the state. Rep. Don Cazayoux wanted to know how this was fair to rural parishes, since they would get much less. Robideaux said urban needs simply were greater. Cazayoux wanted to know why not just keep the priority program as it was instead of going around it, and just change the program. Robideaux said the program would remain the same, but give local governments more say in the matter. Cazayoux saw no real difference.

    Rep. Hollis Downs did. He said this could be a chance for rural parishes to get projects they really wanted funded which, as far as the priorities was high, but from a statewide level did not seem as important as perhaps others in the parish. Robideaux reminded that projects under this regime could be then taken office the priority program. But Rep. William Daniel IV said a holistic perspective was necessary to connect roads together instead of segmenting them parish-by-parish. Robideaux said at least some roads would be built and no doubt the state would try to coordinate procedures anyway through the priority program. Daniel thought this was too much fragmentation to work, but Rep. Dale Erdey thought the state would work to coordinate things.

    Rep. Troy Hebert noted the money, because of a sunset provision in the bill, still was subject to appropriation in essence. Again, to him therefore it didn’t seem that different from the current process. Robideaux said because funds would be put in the Transportation Trust Fund, that would put greater restrictions on the money which currently wasn’t the case, that would steer it to roads building rather than pay for operating expenses.

    Quezaire argued that this amendment essentially would allow parishes to rewrite the priority list, because it removes state involvement entirely for that money. He said his bill as it stood was the consensus and should not be changed and would detract from the state’s ability to work on the $14 billion backlog of roads. Cazayoux said it would be a drastic change which would shortchange rural parishes and build roads in an uncoordinated fashion.

    A motion was made to call the question on the amendment only, as a substitute for one on the entire question. That succeeded, so Robideaux emphasized that local governments should know better what priorities inn their parishes are, and that rural parishes will be better off under his amendment. It failed 40-61.

    Rep. Pete Schneider then offered a lite version where only half of the money involved as asked for by Robideaux would go to the parishes, but what would go to the parishes still would be decided by the state even if allocated to specific parish needs. Quezaire, however, objected to the portion of the amendment that said disputes about use of the parish money, if no metropolitan planning organization existed, the governing authority and district engineer would decide, because this conflicted with the statute’s demand he saw as letting the state decide. Eventually, Schneider withdrew and resubmitted in order to clarify that money would not go to parish roads, but to parish roads on the priority list.

    A motion again was made to call the entire question, substituted without objection to call Schneider’s amendments. Closing, Schneider emphasized this would be additional monies. His resubmission allowed their division. The amendments specifying the allocation failed 40-58, causing the last amendment to send to monies to the parish fund to be moot and got withdrawn.

    Then Rep. Eddie Lambert offered an amendment to force 30 percent of the 86 percent of the money into highways, putting more money into the existing system emphasizing the capacity projects. Quezaire didn’t object, and thus it passed without objection.

    Then Hebert offered an amendment to dedicate 7 percent from the 86 percent to be split between the completion of I-49 north and south. But Lambert thought his amendment would take care of this need. Further, Quezaire said some monies already were going under the proposed budget to I-49 and that this move subverted the existing system, at the expense of other projects. The amendment was defeated 30-58.

    Finally, the question got moved. Quezaire noted the bill would give additional money to roads, and could be revisited because of the sunset provision. The bill passed unanimously.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    My former friend … no, my future friend.
    Cazayoux, questioning Robideaaux – frequently, legislators preserve decorum by speaking to each other as “friend.”

    The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and I’m squeaking.
    Hebert, explaining the motivation for his amendment.

    WEDNESDAY: SB 145 is scheduled to be heard by the House Administration and Criminal Justice Committee; HB 704 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs Committee; HB 960 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Insurance Committee; HB 474 and HB 730 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee.

    09 June 2007

    Legislative regular session through Jun. 9

    NOTE: As a result of amendments, HB 518 has mutated into a non-objectionable bill. It thusly is struck from the list of bad bills.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 436 with minor amendments passed Senate committee; HB 623 was involuntarily deferred by House committee; HB 722 with major amendments passed committee; HB 960 with minor amendments passed the House; SB 22 failed to pass the Senate; SB 98 with minor amendments passed committee and the Senate; SB 127 passed House committee; SB 161 with minor amendments passed committee; SB 195 with minor amendments passed committee; SB 365 was reported with minor amendments by committee as a substitute for SB 174.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 119 failed to pass the House; HB 158 failed to pass the House; HB 962 with minor amendments passed the House; HB 974 was adopted as a substitute for HB 731; SB 1 passed House committee; SB 14 passed the Senate; SB 295 with major amendments passed committee;

    SCORECARD:
    Total House introductions: 974; total Senate introductions: 365.

    Total House good bills: 31; total Senate good bills: 13.

    Total House bad bills: 13; total Senate bad bills: 8.

    Total House good bills heard in committee: 26; total Senate good bills heard in committee: 13.

    Total House bad bills heard in committee: 11; total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 8.

    Total House good bills passing committee: 12; total Senate good bills passing committee: 7.

    Total House bad bills passing committee: 8; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5.

    Total House good bills passing the House: 8; total Senate good bills passing the Senate: 4.

    Total House bad bills passing the House: 3; total Senate bad bills passing the Senate: 2.

    Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 1; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 1.

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

    MONDAY: SB 51 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee

    06 June 2007

    Committee action, Jun. 6: HB 731, SB 127, SB 295

    DID YOU KNOW?
    Finally, after a few years of carping, the Senate seems to have listened to me, at least in terms of audio, by making live broadcasts available in all Senate committee rooms. Most notorious in its absence was Room F, the regular meeting place of the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee. So I finally can cover this committee, and do so below.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 731 would raise judges’ salaries in the state. House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Hunter Greene wanted to know the impact the increases would affect the part-time city judges who are allowed to practice law on the side. Author Rep. Rick Farrar, who argued increases were long-due, said 45 of 73 are, and defended letting them practice to the extent they could up to the district court salary as permitted by law.

    The bill was reported favorably without objection by substitute.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 127 would amend the Constitution to require the state to have an identifiable revenue source to fund increases in benefits to those in retirement systems. Supporters argued that with the large unfunded accrued liabilities in the accounts that this was crucial to getting the accounts in order and disingenuous to those who are system members.

    Rep. Jeff Arnold was concerned about the costs to the state and wanted to refer it to the Appropriations Committee – tantamount to killing the bill since Appropriations already had dealt with budget issues. But, he agreed to let the bill pass out without referral yet warned it would be a matter presented on the floor.

    The House Retirement Committee voted without objection favorable approval.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 295 would dramatically increase the salaries of state senators and legislative assistants. Author Sen. Derrick Shepherd argued the nature of the jobs demanded essentially full-time pay for these positions. In fact, he went further, accepting an amendment to apply provisions to the entire Legislature and to increase even further the pay of assistants.

    The bill was reported with amendments by the Senate and Governmental Affiars Committee favorably without objection.

    QUOTE OF THE DAY:
    Thanks from Sen. Boasso lite
    Rep. Mike Walsworth, in presenting SB 127 to committee.

    05 June 2007

    Committee action, Jun. 5: SB 195, HB 824

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 195 by Sen. James David Cain would get the state out of the insurance business by abolishing the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. It would invite private insurers to pick up business the state currently has. Amended, the bill would have a bid by a private insurer or insurers for business approved by the relevant committees and chambers. Citizens still would exist to collect the emergency assessments approved previously, but would be withdrawn from insuring. The first year under the private holder the old rate, at least 10 percent higher, would continue but then could be reduced after a year. New operators also could not refuse new risky policies if awarded a contract. A performance bond and requirement of certain financial strength would ensure stability.

    Senate Insurance Committee member Rep. Blade Morrish wondered how tax-free status could be maintained. However, this would not be necessary under any contract because the holder would be trying to make a profit, and because their risk management should be superior they would make more money off the business than they would pay in taxes. Morrish asked why that doesn’t happen anyway. The answer: the market is too segmented to have people go looking for insurance. Theoretically, people in high risk areas, unable to get policies, would be steered to the state for insurance. Morrish still seemed perplexed why if the business is inherently unattractive, why the bill made it less so.

    Rep. Troy Hebert mentioned he thought the bill might be good for lowering rates. In addition, insurance would be more widely-available.

    Rep. Dale Erdey wanted to know whether non-admitted carries would be permitted to bid. (Non-admitted carriers do not have to follow state insurance directives.) Cain said if it wasn’t in there, he wanted it to be. He also wondered what a reasonable time for the RFP for the business would go out. Cain said as quickly as possible.

    Rep. Shirley Bowler asked what the impact of the RFPs financially would be, which would be that the state may have to pay in reality for a bidder to take the business, because the risk profile may demand a kind of state backstop in the form of state reinsurance. She wondered whether the business could be turned totally over to a private entity without the state being on the hook to some degree.

    Amendments, which basically had been discussed already, were offered by Hebert and accepted without objection.

    Insurance Commissioner James Donelon then spoke, arguing that the state already had the power to do the things the bill asks. “Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater,” he said. He said nobody could privatize the homeowner business, and the existing Citizens could do what was realistic in the bill. He didn’t think anybody but the largest company even could try to take on the business, leading to little competition, and would not completely absolve the state if all risk. Accordingly, he was against the bill.

    Bowler asked him how large the performance bond would have to be. Donelon said it would have to be at least a billion dollars and that you couldn’t get one. In response to a question to Morrish, he said already some companies were approaching him to take up some Citizens business. In response to a question from Erdey, Donelon said this bill did not really privatize, just change service providers. In response to a question from Rep. Joe Toomy, Donelon said this bill would not increase the ability of the state to increase supervision over service providers.

    Cain closed by saying this bill would increase the sunlight on the residual insurance market, and bring greater efficiency to the market. Citizens was unlike the private market and had far less incentive to behave efficiently. Further, constituents would not be under any risk, he said the bill clearly states.

    Morrish moved to defer the bill but failed 10-2 with only he had Toomy voting in favor. After that, the entire bill passed without objection.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 824 by Rep. Alex Heaton would permit smoking in an area in which food is not served inside a restaurant, separated and enclosed and with a separate ventilation system. Current law makes exceptions only for casino bars in restaurants, including truck stops. Supporters argued the bill would create a level playing field and relieve suffering local business.

    House Health and Welfare Committee member Rep. Robby Carter objected to “suffering” being used as a term, because he saw “suffering” really occurring among those with pulmonary problems caused from smoking. He said if there was any uneven playing field, even though restaurants were doing better as a whole after the ban was passed, he said smoking ought to be banned everywhere.

    Rep. Jean Doerge pointed out that if the bar was attached to the restaurant, smoke still would get in when the door was opened. Proponents argued ventilation systems could be arranged to do it. Rep. Nita Hutter said she would amend the bill to do just that. She wanted strict minimum standards, but supporters said it would be difficult to put that in a bill and that a state rule-making procedure should handle that. Hutter got an amendment proposed to have a separate outside entrance without any entrance to the restaurant portion.

    On that amendment, Rep. Mike Strain wondered if this didn’t actually make it a separate business. He was told this actually had been done, so this measure actually would be helpful in introducing less bureaucracy. Thus, the amendment was adopted by consent.

    Opponents said the law was a step backwards that would decrease safety and increase health costs. They said no ventilation system would rule out the danger of second-hand smoke, and enforcement would be almost impossible. They said studies showed restaurants were not losing money as a result of these laws.

    Rep. Diane Winston said they overstated their case. She said there needed to be level playing field, and that people had free will about which should not be discriminated against government. Interrupting witnesses, she asked whether total prohibition was the answer, not discrimination.

    Strain then offered an amendment to say that the Department of Health and Hospitals should approve of ventilation systems. It was adopted without objection.

    Heaton closed by saying nobody would be forced to patronize these areas. Carter moved to defer, Winston objected. It succeeded 9-3.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY
    I was born at night, but not last night.
    Cain, summarizing his view on Donelon’s objection to his bill.

    I think that’s the first valid point I’ve made here.
    Hutter, after supporters of HB 824 said her arguments made “valid points.”

    People keep dreaming these things up … time to stop.
    Carter, as the HB 824 debate wound down.

    Or you can choose to listen to me, or not.
    Heaton, closing on his bill emphasizing the increased choice it would provide.

    WEDNESDAY: HB 576 is scheduled to be heard by the House Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture, and Rural Development Committee; HB 731 is scheduled to be heard by the House Judiciary Committee; SB 127 is scheduled to be heard by the House Retirement Committee; HB 25 and SB 161 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee; SB 295 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee.

    03 June 2007

    Legislative regular session through Jun. 2

    NOTE: Because HB 730 was amended in a major way to make it more than meaningless, it now will join the list of good bills. The bill requires minimal additional income disclosure for any elected or appointed state or local official in the state.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 6 was involuntarily deferred by committee; HB 486 with major amendments was passed by the House; HB 730 with major amendments passed the House.

    THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 407 had rules suspended to be reported favorably to the Senate; HB 461 was involuntarily deferred by committee; HB 518 with minor amendments passed committee; SB 14 passed committee; SB 320 with minor amendments passed committee.

    SCORECARD:
    Total House introductions: 972; total Senate introductions: 364.

    Total House good bills: 31; total Senate good bills: 12.

    Total House bad bills: 14; total Senate bad bills: 8.

    Total House good bills heard in committee: 25; total Senate good bills heard in committee: 12.

    Total House bad bills heard in committee: 11; total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 7.

    Total House good bills passing committee: 12; total Senate good bills passing committee: 3.

    Total House bad bills passing committee: 8; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 3.

    Total House good bills passing the House: 6; total Senate good bills passing the Senate: 3.

    Total House bad bills passing the House: 2; total Senate bad bills passing the Senate: 1.

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

    MONDAY: SB 51 and SB 174 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee

    TUESDAY: HB 113 and HB 436 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary C Committee.

    30 May 2007

    Floor action, May 30: HB 730

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 730 would provide minimal additional income disclosure for legislators. Rep. Michael Jackson the author said only legislator or spousal income above $250 from the state or gaming sources would be reported, and of any ownership of land over $5,000 in value, publicly- traded securities that do business in the state, any company owned 10 percent or more, any loan over $5,000, without having to give any exact or even approximate values.

    Rep. Troy Hebert asked a number of hair-splitting questions, such as whether something owed in the course of a business meant the name of a creditor would be revealed. Hebert argues that a bill that would truly reveal potential conflicts would be much more expansive, said this was useful only as a starting point. Jackson said it was better than nothing (a stronger bill had been altered in committee), and told Hebert Louisiana’s low-ranked perception would improve somewhat even with this weaker bill.

    Rep. Danny Martiny wondered why publicly-traded stocks and bonds had to be concluded. Jackson said some of them from the state would have an interest in what legislators do. Martiny also questioned the reporting of property which now could be revealed because of conveyance records, and wondered what it had to do with ethics. Martiny said it went too far and made a bad impression.

    Rep. Willie Hunter wanted to know why spouses were included. Jackson patiently explained that a legislator might be influenced through spousal connections. Hunter wanted to know whether there was definitive proof this could happen. Jackson said he knew of none, but community property rules put the potential there. Hunter painted a scenario where a legislator could make a completely separate transaction from a spouse, and wondered where it was justified that one would have to report that connected to the other. Hunter claimed it violated what he said in the Constitution was a “right to privacy.” “What bidness is it of the Ethics Board for me to report something I’ve been playing around with for years?” he argued. Jackson reiterated it was a chance to show the general public of potential conflicts of interest. “It needs work” Hunter said.

    Rep. Gary Smith offered an amendment to apply it to all elective offices. “If we’re serious about ethics, we need to be serious about it for everybody.” He reminded Rep. Jack Smith that legislators have no contract power and little discretionary spending power on their own, unlike other officials. Rep. William Daniel IV asked about fitting in appointed officials, and Smith said that was a good idea. Rep. Carl Crane wondered whether day trading in stocks would count; Smith hoped the authors would address that question.

    Jackson opposed the amendment to try to place rules on officials outside of the Legislature. Rep. Don Cazayoux said local officials could regulate themselves. But Rep. Jeff Arnold said other officials had more potential for corruption. The amendment passed 80-18.

    Rep. Jean-Paul Morrell then offered an amendment to apply the standards to the Ethics Board. Jackson said he didn’t like his seatmate’s amendment, but didn’t object to it. Then Rep. Cedric Richmond wanted to amend it to put in a phrase in the oath of office that the legislator would not act corruptly. Jackson objected, thinking it was nongermane. Speaker Joe Salter ruled it was. Richmond said legislation like this was perpetuating a stereotype, but then withdrew the amendment. “This bill crosses the line.”

    Rep. Mert Smiley offered an amendment to speed up implementation from Jan. 1, 2008 to Aug. 15, 2007. The effect would be to apply it to candidates this fall. Jackson objected because they wanted to have it apply to future election cycles. It was adopted.

    Daniel came back with an amendment to include all appointees anywhere. Jackson didn’t object.

    Speaking against the bill, Rep. Charlie DeWitt said legislators shouldn’t have to put themselves and their families under a microscope. If voters didn’t like what they did, they could vote them out. Martiny called the question but Hunter objected and more legislators spoke. Rep. Lelon Kenney said legislators already made great sacrifices to serve and this would make it even more onerous on them.

    Rep. Alex Heaton moved to table the bill. The motion failed 9-83. After Hunter expressed his displeasure once again, Cazayoux defended the bill by saying it reported in extraordinarily general ways that nevertheless gave the public useful information to the voting public. The bill passed 85-14.

    QUOTE OF THE DAY:
    Sometimes perception is reality
    Jackson to Martiny on HB 730

    There isn’t a redneck in Rapides Parish that doesn’t know what I have or don’t have
    DeWitt’s remarks on HB 730

    THURSDAY: SB 52 and SB 98 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Finance Committee.

    26 May 2007

    Legislative regular session through May 26

    THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 113 with minor amendments passed committee; HB 614 passed committee and the House; SB 22 with major amendments passed committee; SB 29 was defeated in committee; SB 66 with minor amendments passed committee and passed the Senate; SB 185 with minor amendments passed committee and the Senate;

    THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 119 passed committee; HB 158 with minor amendments passed committee; HB 407 passed the House; HB 528 passed committee, was substituted by HB 962; SB 1 passed the Senate.

    SCORECARD:
    Total House introductions: 964; total Senate introductions: 362.

    Total House good bills: 29; total Senate good bills: 11.

    Total House bad bills: 14; total Senate bad bills: 8.

    Total House good bills heard in committee: 18; total Senate good bills heard in committee: 9.

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

    Total House good bills passing committee: 10; total Senate good bills passing committee: 3.

    Total House bad bills passing committee: 7; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 2.

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

    Total House bad bills passing the House: 2; total Senate bad bills passing the Senate: 1.

    TUESDAY: SB 126 and SB 145 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary B Committee.

    22 May 2007

    Committee action, May 22: HB 113

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 113 would make it easier to prosecute organized theft rings. These gangs steal small-valued items that then resell them, often out of the country. The problem is separately the items are petty which makes prosecuting difficult, but together they add up to significant losses to retailers and consumers. This would be different from shoplifting because the “fencing” would be the object of the law. This would be felony.

    Rep. Warren Triche wondered why 180 days would be the standard for the time period to add up the separate crimes, and then try to fence. Author Rep. Mike Powell said that was an outside limit, to gather evidence. Authorities could move immediately if they desired. Other amendments were offered to clarify language further, and added without objection.

    Rep. Damon Baldone wondered why an amount under $500 would be a felony, which is uncommon in state law. Caddo Asst. Dist. Atty. Hugo Holland explained otherwise the thieves only could be charged with shoplifting, so the dollar limit should not apply. Still, to speed things along, an amendment was made to raise the aggregate to $500. Holland reminded them the felony provision, for both thief and fence could also kick in at any amount if there was a knowing attempt to resell. But Baldone wanted it only to be a felony at $500 or above. Thus, the amendment was reconsidered and undone.

    Baldone was concerned that an occasional petty offender would get a felony. Holland said judicial system would have discretion in dealing with these offenders and would not have to charge such a person with this law. The bill was reported favorably without objection.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    You have your own personal DA?
    I mean, Caddo’s assistant district attorney – he’s Paul Carmouche’s.
    Triche to Powell, after Powell introduced Holland in a way implying he was working for Powell.

    WEDNESDAY: SB 98 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee; SB 22, SB 295, and SB 320 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee.

    21 May 2007

    Committee action, May 21: HB 262, HB 228, HB 575 and others

    DID YOU KNOW?
    Today was conjecture day for spending surplus money, waiting on the Revenue Estimating Conference’s results tomorrow. In the House Appropriations Committee, several bills were reviewed outlining how money would be spent.

    HB 722 by Rep. Roy Quezaire would create a new fund to roll sales taxes into that would be distributed according to the proportion of the fund paid in by a parish’s taxes; that is, the more a parish put in, the more that would come back to it for its road needs. This would be newly dedicated money on top of existing funds for roads in the state, although only some of the money, 31 percent, would be distributed that way. This money thus would be removed from the general fund.

    Rep. Don Cazayoux complained the present system was preferable because it spread the money around. “This is a stark deviation … why decide to do it differently?” Quezaire said the new fund would better address immediate infrastructure needs, while projects of lesser priority would still be taken care of through the present system; nobody would be shortchanged because this would be a new pot of money.

    Rep. Elcie Guillory wondered about the bill’s impact on ports. Quezaire said the 7 percent allocated to ports would be in addition to present current funding, essentially doubling the current allocation. The state supposedly gets $6 back for every buck spent on ports. Chairman John Alario advised the committee to move on to other matters, and so it did.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 168 by Rep. Bodi White would take 100 percent sales tax from vehicle sales to fund non-federal roads. He indicated there would be amendments which are that it would be phased in over a couple of years, not starting this budget year, and it would have a sunset provision to reassess whether it was needed after 2010.

    Rep. Tom McVea asked about its impact concerning HB 722. White said there was no dedicated funding to things like ports, it also used the existing funding structure instead of creating a new class of prioritized road. Other members made approving noises concerning it.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 165 by Rep. Joel Robideaux also wanted the 4 percent sales tax. His bill would create a special fund to allocate by parish proportion of payment by its citizens. These funds would apply to all kinds of roads, including federally-matches. Treasurer John Kennedy indicated there would be no sunset provision because that would make it virtually impossible to use their shares to bond the money. Both the state and local governments would jointly decide what roads to utilize the money for. It would not deviate from the current priority project list because the parishes could recommend only those projects on the list.

    Cazayoux pointed out that in essence it did deviate from the list because the list was statewide, but those projects that were unfunded from this new fund that were higher priority that those where funds were available from other parishes in essence would be jumped. Population, instead of being one factor of many, now became the overwhelming factor, he noted, which he thought unwise. Kennedy admitted it did this, but said the priority program was not doing the job and this would help. Cazayoux said it was a matter of money, not problems inherent to the program. Kennedy said dedicating the money would get more money to the actual building itself.

    DID YOU KNOW
    HB 691 by Rep. Pete Schneider would be to take 25 percent of the sales tax and distribute to the parishes for high-need roads.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 362 by Taylor Townsend would make any tax cuts or credits introduced into the budget apply to the state’s pending cap, meaning that tax cuts or credits could only come with a two-thirds vote. Rep. Steve Scalise pointed out that the reason for the cap and spending limit was to limit the growth of state government, which was not the same thing as giving money back to the people which helps growth of the private sector. Townsend argued that it would lead to better decision-making dealing with the budget. But then Townsend moved to voluntarily defer the bill, which happened without objection.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    Scalise’s HB 228 would reaffirm by law that in computation of the expenditure limit figure would occur using actual, extant numbers rather than old data. Scalise noted past practice of using numbers already superseded by more current data was contrary to the intent of the Constitution, and the formula was not being faithfully followed by putting a formula into law which had yet to be done. Scalise said he believed there would be a court challenge if this bill was not passed, and quoted the Constitution to show how the formula now being used by the state contravened it.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    HB 575 would force the state to send absentee voting material to everybody in the state. Reps. Juan LaFonta said the bill was going to be amended to do it just for residents of parishes affected by a declared disaster, at somewhat less cost, regardless of whether they had lived in the state since that disaster.

    DID YOU KNOW?
    SB 29 would repeal income taxes over a four-year period. Author and Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee member Sen. Max Malone said other states did this and were doing fine economically. He said eventually $3 billion would be taken out of the budget annually. Sen. Robert Adley objected to it, saying this was too big oh a hit and would not be responsible. Sen. Ann Duplessis said other states without income taxes should be studied to find out how they can do it successfully. Malone said he knew property taxes were lower in Louisiana but otherwise things often were the same in terms of tax burdens.

    Adley moved to defer the bill but Malone asked for a substitute motion to pass, which took precedence. Malone was the only senator on the committee to vote for his bill.

    QUOTES OF THE DAY:
    This bill would reduce reliance on H & R Alario for tax services
    We haven’t done a fiscal note on the Alario firm
    Rep. Blade Morrish to Alario talking about his HB 87 and making reference to Alario’s real job.

    The compromise was made in the hallway about 20 minutes ago
    You could have us saved that information
    Rep. Warren Triche to Rep. Gordon Dove concerning HB 642

    If you could provide us with $733 million in cuts, that would help us out … you will have that list of cuts for us, won’t you?
    If you will co-author it
    No, but I’ll look at it
    Alario to Scalise and his rejoinder, as HB 228 in this fiscal year in effect would reduce the executive budget by that much.

    TUESDAY: HB 113 and HB 614 are scheduled to be heard by the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee; HB 598 is scheduled to be heard by the House Education Committee; HB 528 is scheduled to be heard by the House Insurance Committee.