THE GIESEN PERSPECTIVE

The Chambers Gear Up For the Last Two Weeks of the 2007 Session

DATE: Monday, February 12, 2007

WHERE THE LEGISLATORS STAND IN GENERAL

Last Tuesday was Crossover day at your General Assembly.  You’ve heard or read about that significant day in the life of the legislators serving you in Richmond.  It’s the final day for the members to consider bills which originated in their own chamber.  On Wednesday last, they began to concentrate on the bills sent to them by “the other chamber.”  Of course there are the exceptions.  Legislatures cannot do anything simply, there have to be exceptions to keep everything interesting.

First, some bills from the other body have already been acted on by each House.  These are generally non-controversial pieces of legislation like “charter bills” or minor changes in the state code. Second and most significantly, the two versions of the Appropriation Act (reported on Sunday,  February 4) are the big exceptions.  It takes the staff of each of the money committees two or three days to prepare the “half sheets” from their committee’s actions.   The “half sheets” are the details of the amendments adopted by each committee.  Of course, you remember your history.  In the days of typewriters these amendments were typed on half sheets of paper to speed up the process.  Now in the era of computers they are reproduced on full sheets of paper in a form the members can study intelligently.

OK, maybe the last phrase is a bit of a stretch.  There is some question in the minds of many around the capitol as to how much time the legislators not on one of the money committees have to review the 400 to 500 various amendments presented to them by the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. You can bet, however, each member studies the “half sheets” which address items in the budget to which they had recommended changes and those items which have a particular interest to their constituents. 

The state budget has grown so large it is difficult for any current member to understand it fully.  Even members on the money committees really only thoroughly know the portions of the budget addressed by the particular sub-committees on which they serve.  All members now rely heavily on the budget analysts who staff the money committees to interpret various sections of the budget and the amendments that the committees report to the floor of each chamber. 

To reduce the challenges on the floor, the staffs conduct “briefings”for all of the members.  These are generally held the day after the amendments are “placed on the members desks.”   This phrase is another “traditional phrase” in the process.  It is still used but the deliveries are actually different from the statement.  The packets of budget amendments are delivered to the legislators offices not their “chamber desks.”  You see, in the dark ages when yours truly came to this August body, legislators didn’t have offices.  The only way the secretarial pool could “deliver the amendments to the members” was to place them on their desks in the chamber! 

Now, of course, you can see the amendments almost as soon as the members do.  That is, you can if you are competent at your computer and can access the General Assembly web page.

THE BUDGETS PASS

On Thursday the budget bills passed both houses with a minimum of debate.  SB 750 consumed only about 51 minutes of the 40 senators time.  The 100 delegates took a little longer, almost 2 hours, in passing HB 1650.  Most of the time was spent reading the item numbers to which the committee amendments referred. Both bodies operated under the one objection rule.  The Clerk read the item number and moved on to the next item unless someone objected.  The bulk of the amendments to which no objection was raised were then approved.  If someone objected, the Clerk went back to that number and the objection was expressed.  One of the committee members explained the amendment and the committee’s reasons for recommending it.  Staff members sat in the back of the chamber to give the committee member designated to “defend” that committee amendment all the data he or she needed.  Each amendment to which an objection was raised was then passed individually.  Floor amendments were very few and each of these were dispatched in rapid order.  Both budgets were then passed just like they were reported  from the committees on Sunday the 4^th.

The system is much more efficient than it use to be.  But, in my opinion not nearly as stimulating for the members who are not on the committee, nor is it as much fun for the observers to watch, as it was in the 1960s and 70s.  In the 1964 session it took over 10 hours for the House to complete the floor action on The Appropriations Act.  This was THE Appropriations Act since the State Senate only was able to amend the house budget bill and they only had about two weeks in which to decide what amendments they would offer.  Of course, only the Appropriations Committee members knew what was in their amendments until about two days before the budget bill came to the floor.  The Committee’s final deliberations, including their votes, were carried out in executive sessions and the bill was reported without any explanations.  The “half sheets” were produced and placed on the members desks. 

The committee had no staff for the members to seek out and get an explanation for an amendment.  There were no briefings for anyone.  All of the data from which the committee members worked was supplied by the financial experts in the Governor’s administration.  Remember, these were the days when the Democrat Byrd Machine controlled the legislature and the executive branch. 

For several budget cycles during this time frame the small band of “constructive moderate Mountain-Valley Republican” delegates (moderate Republican delegates?), and the “Northern Virginia and Tidewater progressive Democrat” delegates (now let’s see were they progressive or liberals?) each objected to numerous amendments. Also, each of these rather diverse forces submitted hundreds of amendments from the floor.   Those members who presented the floor amendments had usually followed the deliberations of the committee as closely as could be done under the circumstances.

Some might have described these efforts as an exercise in futility.  The impact on the budget was the same as occurred on Thursday.  The Appropriation Act of 1964 passed the House exactly as it had been reported by the Committee even after almost 10 hours of debate.  Nonetheless, the flood of amendments gained media attention and by “keeping the pressure on” the citizens began to achieve change.  By the end of Governor Mills Godwin’s first term (January, 1970), the atmosphere in the state had changed and the process of making a state budget had taken several giant steps forward.

Back to the present and the budget situation at the 2007 session.  Each house will now reject the other’s amendments to the introduced budgets and the conferees will be appointed.  These will be the same as last year unless something most unexpected happens.  The Conferees will use the HB 1650 as the instrument for the final budget.  The Delegates on the Conference Committee will be led by the Appropriations Committee Chair, Vince Callahan.  He will be joined by Republican Delegates Phil Hamilton, Kirk Cox, and  Leo Wardrup, Independent Lacey Putney and Democrat Delegate Johnny Joannou.  Senator John Chichester, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, will be joined by Republicans William Wampler and Walter Stosch and Democrats Chuck Colgan and Edd Houck. 

These conferees went at it long and hard last year to compromise on the 2006-2008 Appropriations Act.  They will now try to fashion a group of amendments which will be favorable to both houses.  There is great doubt among the capitol watchers if this can be done.  See below about the complications created by the transportation blight.  BUT unlike last year, 2007 is an election year.  All 140 of the legislators are up for election.  A number of primary fights as well as general election campaigns are in the wings.  The pressure is on for a transportation solution and a completed budget.  Are the legislators feeling enough pressure to get the job done this year on time?  I believe they are!

TRANSPORTATION.

After the surprise action of Senator Potts on the Substitute for his SB 1369 (See The Giesen Perspective of February 5), the only transportation bill left standing after crossover is The Speaker’s HB 3202.  This bill, now before the Senate Transportation Committee, can be amended by the Senate.  There will probably be efforts to do this. But the more likely strategy for those who will hold out for a “sustainable dedicated source of funding” for the transportation problem, if a sufficient number of votes can be found in the senate, is to have the Governor send down a compromise bill.

Would the Republicans in the House of Delegates like to have a compromise transportation bill become law with the Democrat Governor’s imprint all over it?  That is a very doubtful proposition.  Would the Republican delegates like to go home on time to start campaigning?  You bet you bottom dollar they would.  Would any of the Republicans like to go home without some “reasonable” solution to the transportation problem?  I don’t think so.

The pressure is really on for the Republican Leadership to come together and find a common ground for a solution to the transportation crisis.  This is particularly true in Northern Virginia and Tidewater.  There appears to be some backroom negotiations going on as I write.  The House would like to have The Speaker’s bill be the vehicle that survives this session.  They are beginning to recognize there may be amendments to it.  It may not be able to be a “deal or no deal.”  The threat that the Governor might send down a compromise bill that would pass on the floor of both bodies is now very real.  If the Governor would put forth a real compromise bill (say using half of the House’s recommendation of permanent funding from the General Fund for transportation and half of the Senate Finance Committee’s “removal of the exemption of gasoline from the sales tax”–take off 2 ½ cents of the exemption-) would the House Republican Leadership look very bad in the public’s eyes to such a “reasonable compromise”?  There are probably a number of Democrat contenders that would relish running on such a “stonewalling of a reasonable compromise.”

If push comes to shove by the middle of next week, it might be necessary for the House Republican Leadership to decide the Senate should amend HB 3202 in a reasonable manner and send it back to the House floor.  Or maybe they can amend SB 1412 and approve raising money for transportation through changes in the parimutuel betting laws. 

The plot thickens.  Maybe there should be a tax (or is it a fee) on the pool to guess the transportation funding outcome? Isn’t the legislative process a complete mystery?

Links to Previous Giesen Perspectives:

Feb. 5, 2007 Jan. 22, 2007 Jan. 15, 2007 Dec. 18, 2006 Nov. 22, 2006 Nov. 10, 2006 Sept. 7, 2006 August 23, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 1, 2006 May 24, 2006 April 10, 2006 March 30, 2006 March 20, 2006 March 6, 2006 Feb. 27, 2006 Feb. 17 and 19 2006 Feb. 10, 2006 Feb. 3, 2006 Jan. 27, 2006 Jan. 23, 2006 Jan. 16, 2006 Dec. 21, 2005 Nov. 9, 2005 Oct. 21, 2005 Sept. 16, 2005 Aug. 26, 2005 Aug. 19, 2005 July 7, 2005 June 8, 2005 May 27, 2005 April 7, 2005 March 10, 2005 February 21, 2005 February 14, 2005 February 8, 2005 January 31, 2005 January 15, 2005 December 23, 2004 November 19, 2004

 

 

© 2007 Eldon James & Associates, Inc.