The House Rules Committee
The House Rules Committee takes original ownership of all legislation. Yesterday, we met and recommended that some bills go straight to the House floor for consideration (and possible passage) by the whole House. Those bills passed out of interim committees unanimously. And, we recommended that some bills go to standing committees, where the committee chairs can determine whether the bills will receive a hearing (and debate, amendment, referral to the House floor or – rarely – death).
Committees aren’t killing bills (now, watch, to prove me wrong, all my bills will die in committee). Nor are bills being killed on the floor. When they are, they quickly become zombie bills, coming back from the dead on a motion to reconsider after the sponsor has successfully begged enough colleagues to “just let it advance in the system.”
So, each chamber shovels garbage forward to the other chamber, counting on the other to kill it. And, even then, most bills are killed by the clock (when we constitutionally turn into pumpkins at midnight on the 45th day), rather than by an actual vote. This is a bad practice. To do its part, I plan for the House Rules Committee to more aggressively filter out bills that we deem don’t have a shot at actual passage. And – as you can imagine – we’ll catch all sorts of grief for being oppressive thugs.
To gauge that criticism, let me explain how the process will work. Believing that committees work best when each member is empowered, I have distributed many of the Chair’s prerogatives to the 7 other members of the committee. (We have 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats). Each member can nominate an equal number of bills to each recommendation list we send to the whole body for its approval. However, a majority of the Rules Committee members must agree with those recommendations.
Thus, there are two steps to successfully navigate the House Rules Committee. First, members of the House need to find a Rules Committee member (any Rules Committee member) who will add his/her bill to the list. And, remember, each member, including the Chair, has an equal number of nominations. Second, each Rules Committee member must work with the other 7 members to make sure his/her recommendations will have majority support in the Rules Committee. If a particular bill doesn’t have majority support, the Rules Committee member should tell the bill sponsor to work with the members of the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee member should nominate a different bill.
People will mostly decide the effectiveness of this approach by the fate of the bill(s) they favor, but it is the most open, democratized procedure the Committee has ever used. Rep. Hendrickson suggested that we close the House Rules Committee. I discussed that suggestion with the other committee members, and it’s not going to happen. I’m a proponent of more openness in government, but I don’t think that Rep. Hendrickson or the Democrats should be pilloried for raising the issue for discussion.
An argument could be made that a closed process would work better for the minority party. (Not MY argument, mind you, but AN argument). In general, there isn’t as much partisan friction in the Utah Legislature as the Media might have you believe. Democrats have some very effective members; like every member of the Legislature, they simply understand that a majority of votes is needed at every step in the process; and they put legislation in a form that it can receive that support. If a Rules Committee member doesn’t do his/her homework with the other members of the Committee, to determine whether majority support exists, the bill simply will be removed from the list. A more candid exchange and, yes, horse trading and deal making could produce a less-blunt outcome. In a closed meeting, members are more likely to say, “C’mon. You know that bill is not ready and doesn’t have a prayer of passing the Legislature and will only take time away from bills that have a shot. What do you want that might have a prayer?”
It’s exciting to be back in the Capitol. I am optimistic that the Rules Committee will do a good job of serving the House and the people of the State.
Committees aren’t killing bills (now, watch, to prove me wrong, all my bills will die in committee). Nor are bills being killed on the floor. When they are, they quickly become zombie bills, coming back from the dead on a motion to reconsider after the sponsor has successfully begged enough colleagues to “just let it advance in the system.”
So, each chamber shovels garbage forward to the other chamber, counting on the other to kill it. And, even then, most bills are killed by the clock (when we constitutionally turn into pumpkins at midnight on the 45th day), rather than by an actual vote. This is a bad practice. To do its part, I plan for the House Rules Committee to more aggressively filter out bills that we deem don’t have a shot at actual passage. And – as you can imagine – we’ll catch all sorts of grief for being oppressive thugs.
To gauge that criticism, let me explain how the process will work. Believing that committees work best when each member is empowered, I have distributed many of the Chair’s prerogatives to the 7 other members of the committee. (We have 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats). Each member can nominate an equal number of bills to each recommendation list we send to the whole body for its approval. However, a majority of the Rules Committee members must agree with those recommendations.
Thus, there are two steps to successfully navigate the House Rules Committee. First, members of the House need to find a Rules Committee member (any Rules Committee member) who will add his/her bill to the list. And, remember, each member, including the Chair, has an equal number of nominations. Second, each Rules Committee member must work with the other 7 members to make sure his/her recommendations will have majority support in the Rules Committee. If a particular bill doesn’t have majority support, the Rules Committee member should tell the bill sponsor to work with the members of the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee member should nominate a different bill.
People will mostly decide the effectiveness of this approach by the fate of the bill(s) they favor, but it is the most open, democratized procedure the Committee has ever used. Rep. Hendrickson suggested that we close the House Rules Committee. I discussed that suggestion with the other committee members, and it’s not going to happen. I’m a proponent of more openness in government, but I don’t think that Rep. Hendrickson or the Democrats should be pilloried for raising the issue for discussion.
An argument could be made that a closed process would work better for the minority party. (Not MY argument, mind you, but AN argument). In general, there isn’t as much partisan friction in the Utah Legislature as the Media might have you believe. Democrats have some very effective members; like every member of the Legislature, they simply understand that a majority of votes is needed at every step in the process; and they put legislation in a form that it can receive that support. If a Rules Committee member doesn’t do his/her homework with the other members of the Committee, to determine whether majority support exists, the bill simply will be removed from the list. A more candid exchange and, yes, horse trading and deal making could produce a less-blunt outcome. In a closed meeting, members are more likely to say, “C’mon. You know that bill is not ready and doesn’t have a prayer of passing the Legislature and will only take time away from bills that have a shot. What do you want that might have a prayer?”
It’s exciting to be back in the Capitol. I am optimistic that the Rules Committee will do a good job of serving the House and the people of the State.
posted by steve u. at 1/17/2008
Subscribe
14 Comments:
Mr. Speaker,
I move that the enacting clause be struck on all bills sponsored by Rep. Urquhart. Can I get a second?
Just kidding Steve. I couldn't resist.
So how about opening the Republican caucus meetings? (Not that I'm trying to pillory GOP legislators)
Contrary to popular opinion, it's not just the Republicans that close their caucuses. The House Dems had an issue recently where some members were moving against the tide on an important issue, and they closed their caucus to deal with it. Sometimes it's necessary to close the doors and let the fur fly. There are times where a deliberative body requires brutal bluntness; the media would have a field day with it. In open caucuses, for fear of the really bad quote, members simply won't air it out; so it gets said/done behind the scenes anyway. I don't know what could be done about that reality.
Remember, though, the House Republicans probably close around 3 caucuses per session; all others (every Tuesday/Thursday at 12:30) are open.
The difference, of course, is that when Republicans take a vote in caucus, that determines the outcome. When Democrats close the doors, who cares?
But back to Rules Committee. Would it be fair to say that in some cases, bills don't get out because Committee Members have problems with the sponsor, not necessarily the bill? Can votes on one bill influence a Rules decision on another?
Anon.,
Rarely, but yes. Legislative process is actually pretty cordial. Anywhere in the process, if someone goes out of his/her way to abuse, embarrass, belittle, etc. another member, that member likely will poke back. The rules committee isn't immune to that.
Like most members, I learned the hard way. My first session I pointed out the stupidity of a bill in spectacular fashion. My stupidity of doing it in such a harsh manner haunted me in many ways.
Oops. I didn't read the questions closely. Above, I answered the one about problems with the sponsor.
Regarding payback on votes, I don't think so. But you'll infrequently hear some people explain their votes by proclaiming that people voting the other way are stupid, corrupt, etc. That tends to get emotions stirring.
One thing we learn early is that everyone has different backgrounds and constituencies. Of course, we'll lobby the heck out of each other, but that has to be respected.
Steve,
You are such an oppressive thug! Ha, ha, ha! I actually think the processes you've put in place since being over Rules have been both fair and efficient. Some fine-tuning will just make it that much better. Way to go.
Steve,
When does the leadership of either party come into sway and take on the role of the "decider", thus removing the role of the rules committee members - or at least those in their party?
If it does happen, is it just on certain issues or does it happen when leadership wants to usurp?
Rep. Urquhart,
I'm wondering how much you can tell us about the changes made last week in the Rules Committee procedures.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695252353,00.html
(This is not an endorsement of Bernick as source of truth, but the fact that the rules changed seems pretty straightforward.)
I appreciate your blog and your ability to appreciate differing opinions. I understand a variety of reasons why you may choose not to comment or feel unable to, but I'm curious about the reasoning behind the changes.
They seem sudden after your post here detailing how well you thought the process worked. Haven't the current rules been in place for several years?
How much did Speaker Curtis or other leaders push the change? Do you personally support the change or feel it improves the process? Were the bills pushed by Rep. Biskupski the major impetus for the changes as the article says, or was there some other reason?
After reading your amendment to HB473 (http://le.utah.gov/~2008/pamend/hb0473.hfa.01.pdf) I can only say that "disappointment" does not come close to explaining how I feel.
To quote from a GOUtah alert:
This amendment is sponsored by Rep. Urquhart, and it was drafted
hastily and in secret. It was written so fast that it even has a
typo on it!
The Urquhart amendment actually creates new gun-carry restrictions
throughout the state. In particular, it would make it a crime for a
permit-holder to openly carry a firearm in many places where it is
currently legal to do so. This amendment is plain old-fashioned gun
control, pure and simple, and it was likely written at the behest of
the anti-gun administrators of the University of Utah. Currently,
according to our reading of the Utah Code, it's legal for a permit
holder to openly carry his self-defense weapon at that U. of U.
We've heard stories of campus police harassing people who do this
(which is why HB 473 was introduced, to prevent such harassment), but
to our knowledge they've never actually arrested anyone because they
know there's nothing they can arrest them for, because they're not
breaking any laws. If Floor Amendment 1 passes, the campus police
will actually be able to fine or arrest permit holders for carrying
openly.
Wow. In my opinion, your amendment to HB 473 was one of the few sane things done by a Republican in the last week of the session. I saw you acting as Speaker for awhile today.
I'm still interested in anything you can say about the rules changes.
I'm even more interested in your opinion of the omnibus bill, especially the inclusion of three bills that had been voted down in committee. As a "process guy," why did you vote for the bill?
I am disillusioned and angry. I feel like the talk about moving on from vouchers was just talk and that the legislative leadership is pushing their agenda over good government. Even someone who supported all 12 of those bills should be angered by the lack of respect shown to the process and to public input.
Utah Teacher,
Like much of life, legislation is a process of give and take. That often involves bundling different concepts, until the right mix is created that will garner support to get ideas through the process. There was nothing extraordinary about the process on HB 473. I am a process guy, and HB 473 simply is a bill that successfully navigated the process. You might not like some of the contents, but that's a different topic.
Hello Rep. Urquhart,
I hope you have caught up on your sleep from the session.
I'm pretty sure from the context of your comment that we are both discussing the education omnibus bill SB2, but just in case, my comment on HB 473 was just an offhand reaction to the anonymous poster to let you know I greatly appreciated your amendment to that bill.
Like much of life, legislation is a process of give and take. That often involves bundling different concepts, until the right mix is created that will garner support to get ideas through the process. There was nothing extraordinary about the process on HB 473.
Speaking of SB2, I just cannot see where you are coming from on this one. Your quote does not accurately describe what happened. There were various concepts that had already garnered near unanimous support without being mixed with things that had already been defeated . HB 67 and HB 270 were the earliest bills to be used--they had passed the House and two Senate votes unanimously and then...they were mysteriously tabled on Feb. 14th. SB 61 was tabled 4 days later and Sen. Jones expressed her frustration during the March 4th Senate debate of SB 2 that her bill--having gone through the process for nine months--was now being used to pass other bills at the last minute.
The D-News, Trib, and Herald all called the omnibus unprecedented or surprising. It seems like the SB 2 proponents only "took" to support an agenda while "giving" nothing to other bills that were already going to pass on their own merits.
This is meant to be as non-personal as I can make my anger at the "non-process" used in the omnibus bill. I just don't think the argument can be made that it was business as normal or conducive to full discussion of the enclosed bills. Thanks for listening.
The newspapers overreach. One of my fondest memories of legislative process will always be SB 154 (2004). As the House sponsor, I stood and debated the bill for 2 hours, as amendments of all sorts came at it. It was a broad bill -- that lost elements I personally liked and gained a few that I didn't. Legislation involves give and take.
Post a Comment
<< Home