LifeTree   7/15/03

Unfortunately, staff in the offices of some NC House leaders have
been telling people various things about H998 that are NOT true.
In particular, you need to know that:

 o  It is definitely NOT true that the bill doesn't have the
    votes to pass.  (A majority of the house is SPONSORING the
    bill, and some of the others have promised to vote for it,
    so it obviously has the votes to pass.  Also, a majority
    of the House Rules Committee is sponsoring it, so it
    obviously has the votes to pass there, too.)

 o  It is definitely NOT true that preventing a vote on the
    bill in some way "protects" it from failing.  (That is just
    nonsense.  If it comes to a vote it will pass, if they do
    not permit a vote it cannot become law.)

 o  It is definitely NOT true that the bill is ineligible
    because it needed to meet the May 1 crossover deadline.


All three of those objections are nonsense.  The third one is,
however, somewhat complicated nonsense.  The rest of this note
is about that objection.

We've spoken with NCGA staff attorney Diana Jessup, who advises
the Rules Committee, and who explained the objection to us.
Here are the facts:

The "crossover rule" is a rule which requires that some bills
be passed by the May 1 "crossover deadline" in order to be
eligible for consideration by the other chamber (i.e., by the
Senate, for H998).  It only applies only to bills that do not
affect either appropriations (spending) or revenue (taxes/fees).

H998 has a "Fiscal Note" (staff analysis of fiscal impact),
which reports that it spends ~$75,000 per year (for printed
materials and a web site, to disseminate information to women),
so it clearly affects spending.  Hence, the crossover rule
should not apply.  You may read the fiscal note here:
http://www.ncleg.net/html2003/bills/FiscalInfo/House/HFN0998.pdf

However, the language of the bill says that "available funds"
should be used to cover the costs.  Some House staffers are now
claiming that means that the money is not being "appropriated"
so the bill should have met the crossover deadline.

That claim is untrue because:

1) The bill sponsors were told that consideration of H998 should
await the crossover deadline, so that bills which needed to meet
that deadline could be considered first.  And,

2) In 1997, H536, which used identical language for its funding
provision, was passed by the House and accepted for consideration
by the Senate, under nearly indentical rules.  (Unfortunately,
H536 died in a Senate committee, but that's a different topic.)
You may read that bill here:
http://www.ncleg.net/html1997/bills/currentversion/house/hbil0536.full.html
And,

3) The rule in question is a Senate rule, which governs which House
bills they will accept.  It is not a House rule.

That means that the issue is about whether the bill will be
accepted by the Senate after being passed by the House.  Whether
or not the bill can be considered by the House is NOT at issue.

It also means that it is the language in the version of the
bill which is actually passed by the House that matters, not
the initial language as introduced.  So, to eliminate concern
that the Senate might object to the bill's eligibility, Rep.
Julia Howard has proposed a tiny change to the bill, as an
amendment to be made in the Rules Committee, which says that
the $75,000 would come from the General Fund, rather than from
available funds.

This amendment would not change either the effectiveness of the
bill or its fiscal impact, but it would eliminate concern over
the applicability of the crossover deadline to this bill.

By the way, Rep. Howard proposed her amendment BEFORE the crossover
deadline, but Rep. Culpepper has, so far, refused to allow it to
be considered.