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.
12 June 2007
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)