THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 24 was substituted by HB 1357, with minor amendments passed committee; HB 199 with minor amendments passed committee; HB 734 passed committee; HB 835 with minor amendments passed committee; HB 888 passed the House; HB 1022 with major amendments passed committee; SB 64 with minor amendments passed committee; SB 87 with major amendments passed Senate; SB 598 passed House committee; SB 733 with minor amendments passed Senate;
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 314 was involuntarily deferred; HB 551 was withdrawn; HB 717 passed committee; HB 735 passed committee; HB 911 with minor amendments passed committee; HB 939 passed committee; HB 991 was involuntarily deferred by committee; SB 134 failed to pass the Senate;
MONDAY:
HB 850 and HB 1209 are scheduled to be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee; SB 1 and SB 527 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee; SB 672, SB 772, and SB 796 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Finance Committee.
SCORECARD:
Total House introductions: 1360; total Senate introductions: 807.
Total House good bills: 42; total Senate good bills: 24.
Total House bad bills: 39; total Senate bad bills: 15.
Total House good bills heard in committee: 23; total Senate good bills heard in committee: 13.
Total House bad bills heard in committee: 23; total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 7.
Total House good bills passing committee: 12; total Senate good bills passing committee: 9.
Total House bad bills passing committee: 6; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5.
Total House good bills passing the House: 4; total Senate good bills passing the Senate: 5.
Total House bad bills passing the House: 1; total Senate bad bills passing the Senate: 1.
Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 3.
28 April 2008
Committee action, Apr. 28: SB 199
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 199 would raise the maximum amount that could be held by the Budget Stabilization Fund to seven rather than four percent of revenues. Sen. Nick Gautreaux said this bill was a prudent measure to enable the state to bank more money. It would not impact spending on current services since it kicks in only during flush times, and it was entirely voluntary in most instances whether to put money into it.
Sen. Lydia Jackson wondered why he didn’t change the trigger figures to access the fund, that the budget would be “destabilized” unless the threshold to access funds was made easier. She wanted the bill to lay over for more information. He said that didn’t change the facts of the bill and could live with that but if they wanted to kill the bill, through deferral, they could.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Michot said if there was some greater benefit such as getting a better bond rating, he could go along with it, but nobody knew how the increase would affect that. Sen. Mike Walsworth suggested comparisons with other states to see what their level was, and to defer it until then.
Gautreaux and the committee went along with that without objection.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Let’s just face facts, and end it now … I didn’t move to defer.
Gautreaux, implying a temporary deferral would in reality be permanent and to stop the pretense, but when Michot suggested Gautreaux had move for that, he corrected him.
SB 199 would raise the maximum amount that could be held by the Budget Stabilization Fund to seven rather than four percent of revenues. Sen. Nick Gautreaux said this bill was a prudent measure to enable the state to bank more money. It would not impact spending on current services since it kicks in only during flush times, and it was entirely voluntary in most instances whether to put money into it.
Sen. Lydia Jackson wondered why he didn’t change the trigger figures to access the fund, that the budget would be “destabilized” unless the threshold to access funds was made easier. She wanted the bill to lay over for more information. He said that didn’t change the facts of the bill and could live with that but if they wanted to kill the bill, through deferral, they could.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Michot said if there was some greater benefit such as getting a better bond rating, he could go along with it, but nobody knew how the increase would affect that. Sen. Mike Walsworth suggested comparisons with other states to see what their level was, and to defer it until then.
Gautreaux and the committee went along with that without objection.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Let’s just face facts, and end it now … I didn’t move to defer.
Gautreaux, implying a temporary deferral would in reality be permanent and to stop the pretense, but when Michot suggested Gautreaux had move for that, he corrected him.
26 April 2008
Legislative regular session through Apr. 26, 2008
THE GOOD: HB 1172 by Karen St. Germain would allow splitting of election commissioner shifts; HB 1195 by Rep. John Shroder would force nongovernmental organizations receiving a state appropriation to put up matching funds and comply with reporting requirements (Similar to SB 561: HB 1168; similar bill to SB 526: HB 1166; similar bills to HB 1195: HB 1207, HB 1212; similar bill to HB 598: HB 1209; similar bill to SB 397: SB 772)
THE BAD: SB 796 by Sen. Joe McPherson would make it easier for the state to pile up more debt (similar bill to HB 106: HB 1198, SB 792; similar bill to SB 223: HB 1213; similar bills to HB 397: HB 1302, 1306)
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 506 passed committee; HB 622 passed House; SB 27 with minor amendments was reported to the Senate; SB 87 passed committee; SB 133 passed House committee; SB 167 passed House committee; SB 422 was reported by substitute to the Senate; SB 561 was reported by substitute to the Senate becoming SB 733; SB 598 passed committee and Senate;
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 81 was involuntarily deferred in committee; HB 82 with major amendments passed committee; HB 551 was withdrawn; HB 852 with minor amendments passed House; SB 134 passed committee; SB 223 with minor amendments passed committee; SB 653 with minor amendments passed Senate;
MONDAY: SB 1 and SB 527 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee; SB 199 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Finance Committee
SCORECARD:
Total House introductions: 1353; total Senate introductions: 805.
Total House good bills: 41; total Senate good bills: 25.
Total House bad bills: 39; total Senate bad bills: 15.
Total House good bills heard in committee: 14; total Senate good bills heard in committee: 8.
Total House bad bills heard in committee: 14; total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 7.
Total House good bills passing committee: 7; total Senate good bills passing committee: 7.
Total House bad bills passing committee: 3; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5.
Total House good bills passing the House: 3; total Senate good bills passing the Senate: 3.
Total House bad bills passing the House: 1; total Senate bad bills passing the Senate: 1.
Total Senate good bills passing House committee: 2; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 2.
THE BAD: SB 796 by Sen. Joe McPherson would make it easier for the state to pile up more debt (similar bill to HB 106: HB 1198, SB 792; similar bill to SB 223: HB 1213; similar bills to HB 397: HB 1302, 1306)
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 506 passed committee; HB 622 passed House; SB 27 with minor amendments was reported to the Senate; SB 87 passed committee; SB 133 passed House committee; SB 167 passed House committee; SB 422 was reported by substitute to the Senate; SB 561 was reported by substitute to the Senate becoming SB 733; SB 598 passed committee and Senate;
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 81 was involuntarily deferred in committee; HB 82 with major amendments passed committee; HB 551 was withdrawn; HB 852 with minor amendments passed House; SB 134 passed committee; SB 223 with minor amendments passed committee; SB 653 with minor amendments passed Senate;
MONDAY: SB 1 and SB 527 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee; SB 199 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Finance Committee
SCORECARD:
Total House introductions: 1353; total Senate introductions: 805.
Total House good bills: 41; total Senate good bills: 25.
Total House bad bills: 39; total Senate bad bills: 15.
Total House good bills heard in committee: 14; total Senate good bills heard in committee: 8.
Total House bad bills heard in committee: 14; total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 7.
Total House good bills passing committee: 7; total Senate good bills passing committee: 7.
Total House bad bills passing committee: 3; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5.
Total House good bills passing the House: 3; total Senate good bills passing the Senate: 3.
Total House bad bills passing the House: 1; total Senate bad bills passing the Senate: 1.
Total Senate good bills passing House committee: 2; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 2.
23 April 2008
Committee action, Apr. 23: SB 167, SB 134, SB 135, HB 924
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 167 by Sen. Edwin Murray would allow for committees between sessions to meet by video conferencing. House and Governmental Affairs chairman Rep. Rick Gallot said he believed the time was right in terms of technology for this to become possible. He said these would be for informational purposes. However, each chamber would have to adopt rules to permit a per diem to be paid. He said this would not be required, but could be used in uncomplicated cases.
A spokesman for a firm dealing with software that could arrange for this answered some questions about the technical aspects of the process. But Rep. George Cromer, on the question of quorums, said this could be used to shut the public out because all substantive discussion could occur away from the public.
Despite this, the bill was adopted without objection.
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 134 would allow classified civil servants to advocate politically on behalf of organizations of which they are officers. Author Sen. Joe McPherson said this would allow groups to say what a group’s position or endorsement, and that adequate protections still would be there to prevent political retaliation.
Sen. Jack Donahue asked whether this would defeat the purpose of civil service protections. McPherson said this would allow freer expression. Donahue asserted there was an implicit trade, stability for activism, which McPherson denied because he said those were individual rights whereas his bill was speech only in the context of a group. Donahue disagreed, saying this was an “end run.”
Donahue questioned supporting witnesses, from unions, who agreed a group was a collection of individuals and therefore voicing their opinions. Another said this essentially could be done by people with the organizations, just not by Louisiana civil servants. Opposing witnesses agreed with Donahue, saying the tradeoff is well understood at time of employment and it is for their own protection.
McPherson closed by saying this was a very slight change and these organizations were involved in the process, and the organizations deserved political speech which was more open than sending checks or holding up signs. Since this would entail constitutional change, he said at least let the people decide. He repeated there would be no threats to protection, nor did many witnesses feel intimidation.
The vote on SB 134, the constitutional amendment, deadlocked at 2-2 with Donahue opposing and McPherson and Murray favoring, others being absent. Then the enabling legislation, SB 135 passed 3-1 as Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Kostelka voted to pass. But then he said he had been mistaken and meant to do the opposite – vote for SB 134 the amendment, and not for the legislation SB 135. McPherson then graciously unwound both votes through reconsiderations and the intended result manifested.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 924 would instruct legislators and statewide elected officials to teach two half days in the public schools, of which one would be in a poorer (“Title 1”) school. Rep. Don Trahan said it would better inform legislators. Treas. John Kennedy testified his experiences as a substitute teacher were valuable.
Rep. Karen Peterson offered amendments to reduce the time to an hour and make it less compulsory to allow legislators to talk about their experiences rather than actually instruct. But Trahan said he favored the more compulsory instructional language. Kennedy also said the real impact came from the longer time and the instruction of the lesson plan. Peterson said she thought this would be too much, and said she only earned $16,800 as a legislator and needed to earn a living otherwise, calling this “unreasonable.” Trahan said it just was not the same beneficial experience. Peterson then pledged for the next three years she would volunteer to do it and report back to Trahan, but that this should not be a matter of policy. Trahan said the bill did not actually require one to teach, and did not object to adoption of the amendment.
Rep. Patrick Connick said why not extend the bill to visit lots of different things, why only make education visits compulsory? Because, Trahan said, education was his interest and 55 percent of the budget was on education.
Amended, the bill was adopted without objection.
QUOTES OF THE DAY:
This is an interesting bill … actually, it’s not.
Trahan, referring to his bill recreating the Department of Education.
I was satisfied with the vote on it.
McPherson, after reconsidering the vote on SB 134 before it on SB 135.
They’re so desperate for substitutes, they’re even taking politicians.
Kennedy, about his experiences substitute teaching.
SB 167 by Sen. Edwin Murray would allow for committees between sessions to meet by video conferencing. House and Governmental Affairs chairman Rep. Rick Gallot said he believed the time was right in terms of technology for this to become possible. He said these would be for informational purposes. However, each chamber would have to adopt rules to permit a per diem to be paid. He said this would not be required, but could be used in uncomplicated cases.
A spokesman for a firm dealing with software that could arrange for this answered some questions about the technical aspects of the process. But Rep. George Cromer, on the question of quorums, said this could be used to shut the public out because all substantive discussion could occur away from the public.
Despite this, the bill was adopted without objection.
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 134 would allow classified civil servants to advocate politically on behalf of organizations of which they are officers. Author Sen. Joe McPherson said this would allow groups to say what a group’s position or endorsement, and that adequate protections still would be there to prevent political retaliation.
Sen. Jack Donahue asked whether this would defeat the purpose of civil service protections. McPherson said this would allow freer expression. Donahue asserted there was an implicit trade, stability for activism, which McPherson denied because he said those were individual rights whereas his bill was speech only in the context of a group. Donahue disagreed, saying this was an “end run.”
Donahue questioned supporting witnesses, from unions, who agreed a group was a collection of individuals and therefore voicing their opinions. Another said this essentially could be done by people with the organizations, just not by Louisiana civil servants. Opposing witnesses agreed with Donahue, saying the tradeoff is well understood at time of employment and it is for their own protection.
McPherson closed by saying this was a very slight change and these organizations were involved in the process, and the organizations deserved political speech which was more open than sending checks or holding up signs. Since this would entail constitutional change, he said at least let the people decide. He repeated there would be no threats to protection, nor did many witnesses feel intimidation.
The vote on SB 134, the constitutional amendment, deadlocked at 2-2 with Donahue opposing and McPherson and Murray favoring, others being absent. Then the enabling legislation, SB 135 passed 3-1 as Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Kostelka voted to pass. But then he said he had been mistaken and meant to do the opposite – vote for SB 134 the amendment, and not for the legislation SB 135. McPherson then graciously unwound both votes through reconsiderations and the intended result manifested.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 924 would instruct legislators and statewide elected officials to teach two half days in the public schools, of which one would be in a poorer (“Title 1”) school. Rep. Don Trahan said it would better inform legislators. Treas. John Kennedy testified his experiences as a substitute teacher were valuable.
Rep. Karen Peterson offered amendments to reduce the time to an hour and make it less compulsory to allow legislators to talk about their experiences rather than actually instruct. But Trahan said he favored the more compulsory instructional language. Kennedy also said the real impact came from the longer time and the instruction of the lesson plan. Peterson said she thought this would be too much, and said she only earned $16,800 as a legislator and needed to earn a living otherwise, calling this “unreasonable.” Trahan said it just was not the same beneficial experience. Peterson then pledged for the next three years she would volunteer to do it and report back to Trahan, but that this should not be a matter of policy. Trahan said the bill did not actually require one to teach, and did not object to adoption of the amendment.
Rep. Patrick Connick said why not extend the bill to visit lots of different things, why only make education visits compulsory? Because, Trahan said, education was his interest and 55 percent of the budget was on education.
Amended, the bill was adopted without objection.
QUOTES OF THE DAY:
This is an interesting bill … actually, it’s not.
Trahan, referring to his bill recreating the Department of Education.
I was satisfied with the vote on it.
McPherson, after reconsidering the vote on SB 134 before it on SB 135.
They’re so desperate for substitutes, they’re even taking politicians.
Kennedy, about his experiences substitute teaching.
21 April 2008
Committee and floor action, Apr. 21: SB 87, HB 622, HB 852
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 87 would restore income tax rates at the two highest brackets to the levels they occupied previous to the “Stelly Plan.” Author Sen. Buddy Shaw pointed out he was the only one to speak out against it in the House in 2002, and he still was against it because it was not revenue-neutral and the additional revenues allowed for more spending of money that he didn’t think needed to occur. He said the people ought to be keeping this money and that was how economic development really occurs.
Chairman of Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Rob Marionneaux asked what Shaw would recommend be cut to make up the $302 million estimated first-year revenue reduction. Shaw said he did not but was confident that his colleagues could find the approximately one percent reduction in the state budget. Sen. Robert Adley said he was uncertain he could support this without a list of cuts, but at the same time unrealistic revenue projections that were constantly low and that could argue for passage of this bill. Sen. Gerald Long concurred with Adley’s observations about missed projections.
Marionneaux asked why adjust up only the top two rates; Shaw answered the plan had not changed the lowest bracket and the bill was to accomplish that. The middle bracket got hit the worse since their sales tax reductions and offsets from other deductions came nowhere near compensating for the swap to a higher rate, he said.
A representative from the Division of Administration, John Carpenter, testified that a review of it discouraged them from supporting it at this time, in light of approaching deficits from national forces and energy price reductions, given unmet needs of deferred maintenance, unfunded accrued liabilities, etc. No discussions had been had on potential cuts, suggesting the committee hold onto the bill until other developments transpired. Adley wondered whether legislation couldn’t be drafted to take into account a trigger to produce tax cuts if future surpluses came in which he thought were likely. He also suggested that the proposed $307 million to a megafund to attract industry would bring a greater rate of return in the form of tax cuts to individuals.
Adley asked Shaw whether an amendment would be acceptable on the floor to create such a trigger mechanism. Shaw said he preferred a phase-in over this. Sen. Reggie Dupre said Adley’s bill of the year previous which eventually would allow deductions to be totally exempt were quite generous and further reduction would create too much inflexibility. He predicted too high oil and gas prices would negatively impact other state revenues so present revenues were needed. “Can we afford this now? No.”
Sen. Bob Kostelka thought there may be points of contention on the bill but that it deserved to move to the floor. He moved to report it favorably, which Dupre objected to. Marionneaux offered as a substitute to defer the bill until more information from the Revenue Estimating Conference met around the middle of May. Adley asked Shaw what he preferred on this, and wanted an affirmative date on when the bill could be heard next in order that the bill could make it through the process. He thought there were ample funds already. Shaw preferred to move the bill now and have debate on the floor.
Dupre wondered whether dual referral to Finance was necessary; Marionneaux said if there was an expenditure involved over $500,000, that would be the case, but this was not, although it could be asked for on the floor of the Senate. Shaw objected to the substitute. It failed 3-5. The subsequent vote to adopt succeeded 6-3.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 622 would change the lifetime (shorter) and powers (more implementation, less policy) of the Louisiana Recovery Authority. Author Speaker Jim Tucker argued this would increase efficiency in use of recovery funds. An amendment clarified it really was the governor through his representatives who would set policy, to be approved by the Legislature, which was adopted without objection.
The bill passed 103-0.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 852 would prohibit non-hands-free driving in use of cell phones. Author Rep. Austin Badon said this would not prevent use of cell phones in vehicles, just using hand-held devices. He showed the $10 device he bought to accomplish this, and pointed out other jurisdictions and military facilities already adhered to this law. There was plenty of unsafe behavior out there – “you can’t have a hands-free hamburger” – but at least this would eliminate some of it, he said.
Rep. Sam Little wondered whether, since most accidents occurred in rural areas, this would help reduce them. Badon said he thought it would. Rep. Tony Ligi wondered how it would address the dialing of phones. Badon said in many instances you could use voice-activated technology, but dialing would be brief compared to holding a phone up.
Rep. Rickey Nowlin wanted to know how the text-messaging ban would be enforced. Badon said it might be difficult but the point was to ban potentially unsafe behavior. Nowlin thought therefore this should be a secondary offense. Badon said police and judges still had much discretion in applying the law.
Rep. Scott Simon said his research showed the same part of the brain that engages in driving skills is used in making calls, so the bill really wouldn’t address the distraction issue. Badon argued other physical manipulations also created danger that could be eliminated with this bill even if others still existed.
Rep. Jeff Arnold had an amendment that would prohibit a dozen other behaviors, including “banging your head to rock music.” He said the point of the amendment was to show “you can’t legislate common sense.” Badon objected. The amendment failed 8-88. Even so, Arnold said the bill was unnecessary since other laws covered negligent operation of a vehicle. Further, he said accurate enforcement would be virtually impossible.
Speaking against the bill, Arnold was questioned by Rep. J.P. Morrell who asked whether this could be used as a method to circumvent rights, which Arnold said he thought so. But Rep. Regina Barrow said she had just been in an accident whose driver was distracted talking on a cell phone.
Rep. Cedric Richmond offered an amendment to make imposition of the law a local issue, which he would think was helpful for rural areas. But Rep. Kay Katz thought this would be too inconsistent. She also pointed out any costs imposed by the bill would be negated if one simply didn’t talk on the road. The amendment failed 36-61.
After an amendment passed to change the implementation date to 2009, Badon closed. The bill passed 55-45.
QUOTES OF THE DAY:
You have glasses on, so you would seem to use four eyes.
Badon, after Little asserted that he drove “with one eye on the road.”
You’ve got something black growing out of your ear.
Rep. Roy Burrell, noticing Badon’s Bluetooth receiver.
There were other things that I could have put on the list, but I wanted it to keep it G-rated.
Arnold, concerning his amendment.
I would suggest you don’t turn him on in the first place. We’re lucky in New Orleans; we don’t get him.
Arnold, when it was asked whether his amendment would prohibit changing a car’s radio station to tune in talk show host Moon Griffon.
TUESDAY: HB 734 is scheduled to be heard by the House Education Committee.
SB 87 would restore income tax rates at the two highest brackets to the levels they occupied previous to the “Stelly Plan.” Author Sen. Buddy Shaw pointed out he was the only one to speak out against it in the House in 2002, and he still was against it because it was not revenue-neutral and the additional revenues allowed for more spending of money that he didn’t think needed to occur. He said the people ought to be keeping this money and that was how economic development really occurs.
Chairman of Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Rob Marionneaux asked what Shaw would recommend be cut to make up the $302 million estimated first-year revenue reduction. Shaw said he did not but was confident that his colleagues could find the approximately one percent reduction in the state budget. Sen. Robert Adley said he was uncertain he could support this without a list of cuts, but at the same time unrealistic revenue projections that were constantly low and that could argue for passage of this bill. Sen. Gerald Long concurred with Adley’s observations about missed projections.
Marionneaux asked why adjust up only the top two rates; Shaw answered the plan had not changed the lowest bracket and the bill was to accomplish that. The middle bracket got hit the worse since their sales tax reductions and offsets from other deductions came nowhere near compensating for the swap to a higher rate, he said.
A representative from the Division of Administration, John Carpenter, testified that a review of it discouraged them from supporting it at this time, in light of approaching deficits from national forces and energy price reductions, given unmet needs of deferred maintenance, unfunded accrued liabilities, etc. No discussions had been had on potential cuts, suggesting the committee hold onto the bill until other developments transpired. Adley wondered whether legislation couldn’t be drafted to take into account a trigger to produce tax cuts if future surpluses came in which he thought were likely. He also suggested that the proposed $307 million to a megafund to attract industry would bring a greater rate of return in the form of tax cuts to individuals.
Adley asked Shaw whether an amendment would be acceptable on the floor to create such a trigger mechanism. Shaw said he preferred a phase-in over this. Sen. Reggie Dupre said Adley’s bill of the year previous which eventually would allow deductions to be totally exempt were quite generous and further reduction would create too much inflexibility. He predicted too high oil and gas prices would negatively impact other state revenues so present revenues were needed. “Can we afford this now? No.”
Sen. Bob Kostelka thought there may be points of contention on the bill but that it deserved to move to the floor. He moved to report it favorably, which Dupre objected to. Marionneaux offered as a substitute to defer the bill until more information from the Revenue Estimating Conference met around the middle of May. Adley asked Shaw what he preferred on this, and wanted an affirmative date on when the bill could be heard next in order that the bill could make it through the process. He thought there were ample funds already. Shaw preferred to move the bill now and have debate on the floor.
Dupre wondered whether dual referral to Finance was necessary; Marionneaux said if there was an expenditure involved over $500,000, that would be the case, but this was not, although it could be asked for on the floor of the Senate. Shaw objected to the substitute. It failed 3-5. The subsequent vote to adopt succeeded 6-3.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 622 would change the lifetime (shorter) and powers (more implementation, less policy) of the Louisiana Recovery Authority. Author Speaker Jim Tucker argued this would increase efficiency in use of recovery funds. An amendment clarified it really was the governor through his representatives who would set policy, to be approved by the Legislature, which was adopted without objection.
The bill passed 103-0.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 852 would prohibit non-hands-free driving in use of cell phones. Author Rep. Austin Badon said this would not prevent use of cell phones in vehicles, just using hand-held devices. He showed the $10 device he bought to accomplish this, and pointed out other jurisdictions and military facilities already adhered to this law. There was plenty of unsafe behavior out there – “you can’t have a hands-free hamburger” – but at least this would eliminate some of it, he said.
Rep. Sam Little wondered whether, since most accidents occurred in rural areas, this would help reduce them. Badon said he thought it would. Rep. Tony Ligi wondered how it would address the dialing of phones. Badon said in many instances you could use voice-activated technology, but dialing would be brief compared to holding a phone up.
Rep. Rickey Nowlin wanted to know how the text-messaging ban would be enforced. Badon said it might be difficult but the point was to ban potentially unsafe behavior. Nowlin thought therefore this should be a secondary offense. Badon said police and judges still had much discretion in applying the law.
Rep. Scott Simon said his research showed the same part of the brain that engages in driving skills is used in making calls, so the bill really wouldn’t address the distraction issue. Badon argued other physical manipulations also created danger that could be eliminated with this bill even if others still existed.
Rep. Jeff Arnold had an amendment that would prohibit a dozen other behaviors, including “banging your head to rock music.” He said the point of the amendment was to show “you can’t legislate common sense.” Badon objected. The amendment failed 8-88. Even so, Arnold said the bill was unnecessary since other laws covered negligent operation of a vehicle. Further, he said accurate enforcement would be virtually impossible.
Speaking against the bill, Arnold was questioned by Rep. J.P. Morrell who asked whether this could be used as a method to circumvent rights, which Arnold said he thought so. But Rep. Regina Barrow said she had just been in an accident whose driver was distracted talking on a cell phone.
Rep. Cedric Richmond offered an amendment to make imposition of the law a local issue, which he would think was helpful for rural areas. But Rep. Kay Katz thought this would be too inconsistent. She also pointed out any costs imposed by the bill would be negated if one simply didn’t talk on the road. The amendment failed 36-61.
After an amendment passed to change the implementation date to 2009, Badon closed. The bill passed 55-45.
QUOTES OF THE DAY:
You have glasses on, so you would seem to use four eyes.
Badon, after Little asserted that he drove “with one eye on the road.”
You’ve got something black growing out of your ear.
Rep. Roy Burrell, noticing Badon’s Bluetooth receiver.
There were other things that I could have put on the list, but I wanted it to keep it G-rated.
Arnold, concerning his amendment.
I would suggest you don’t turn him on in the first place. We’re lucky in New Orleans; we don’t get him.
Arnold, when it was asked whether his amendment would prohibit changing a car’s radio station to tune in talk show host Moon Griffon.
TUESDAY: HB 734 is scheduled to be heard by the House Education Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)