Tuesday, February 2, 2010

WHAT’S HAPPENING TODAY

Today all Senate and House standing committees meet in three shifts: from 8 to 10, 2:00 to 3:30 and 3:30 to 5:00, with breaks for floor debate at 10 o’clock and caucus lunch at noon.

MORNING COMMITTEES

HOUSE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES will consider HB 232. It spells out rules and regulations for certifiying Medical Language Interpreters, who interpret between English and languages like Spanish, Russian, Somali, Chinese and Navajo.

Also in committee is HB 67. It would prohibit implementing any federal health care reform provision before reporting to the Legislature whether federal law compels compliance; what the consequences of not complying would be; and the effect on Utahns of implementing, or not implementing, that provision. The state would opt out of federal reform if it determined that to be in the best interest of Utahns.

A similar bill, House Joint Resolution 11,will be debated in HOUSE BUSINESS AND LABOR. It urges Congress not to pass reforms that would preempt state health insurance laws, create a federal health insurance exchange, or create a public option.

AFTERNOON COMMITTEES 2:00

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT will hear HB 192. It would expand the definition of renewable energy to include electricity generated by methane gas recovered from working and abandoned coal mines.

Methane is a greenhouse gas over 20 times stronger than carbon dioxide. At issue is whether methane from coal mines should be classified as renewable, and therefore eligible for tax credits, or as a fossil fuel like coal.

House Joint Resolution 12, also in NATURAL RESOURCES, asks the EPA to “halt all carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs...until a full and independent investigation of the climate data conspiracy and global warming science can be substantiated.”

AFTERNOON COMMITTEES 3:30

In SENATE BUSINESS AND LABOR, SB 115 would allow unemployment compensation for those seeking part-time as well as full time jobs.

Substitute SB 49 before the SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE, lists healthy, low calorie snacks and beverages that would be allowed in school vending machines after May 2010.

WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY

The HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE approved unanimously all five of the ethics bills they considered Monday with only minor amendments:

HJR 14 (conflict of interest disclosure Rules)

HB 170 (financial and conflicts of interest disclosure by candidates)

HB 267 (lobbyist disclosure and limits on lobbyist gifts)

HJR 15 (Constitutional amendment authorizing independent ethics commission) and HB 124 (prohibiting personal use of campaign contributions)

and HB 124 (prohibiting personal use of campaign contributions)

HJR 15 drew the most discussion. Rep. King noted that the proposed constitutional amendment does not spell out procedures for filing a complaint alleging unethical legislative behavior; or the qualifications, appointment and terms of commission members; or the commission’s duties, powers, operations, and procedures. It only says the Legislature may decide all these details “by rule.”

It’s common practice for constitutional amendments not to go into too much detail; they often say details will be provided by “statute.”

What’s the difference? A statute (law) can be changed by citizen initiative petitions, such as the one being circulated now by Utahns for Ethical Government. A rule made by the legislature is not subject to change by initiative. Only legislators can change it. Citizens would have no way to change it. Furthermore, in Utah, voters cannot initiate a Constitutional amendment. The Legislature must first propose and approve the amendment by 2/3rds vote before it goes to a vote of the people.

Speaker Clark and Rep. Dougall explained the reason for establishing the independent ethics commission in the Constitution: to make it harder for future legislators to reverse it as they reversed term limits that were only in statute.

Dixie Huefner, representing Utahns for Ethical Government, said it was unclear why a constitutional amendment is needed since earlier committee meetings had clarified that the independent commission proposed in the UEG initiative would be constitutional because it would be advisory only.

Rep. King continued to express concern that the “by rule” wording would insulate future legislatures and commissions from change if needed and said this should be discussed on the House floor.

It will be interesting to see if anyone proposes to change “by rule” to “by statute,” which would give future voters more say via initiative. Then it seems the only things set in constitutional stone would be that the commission will consist of five members and may not be sitting legislators or registered lobbyists.

Sandy Peck