News reports this morning continue to advance the notion that state lawmakers will come together on a state budget prior to the expiration of the current continuing resolution next Friday. As most reports have noted, the issue is made more complex by a House rule that requires 72 hours of public notice prior to the final votes on the budget. This means that lawmakers have to cut their final deal and get it published by the beginning of next week in order to meet the deadline.
While this may, indeed, be possible to pull off, it is worth noting that another House rule could impact the timing of next week’s process as well.
House Rule 44(b) (click here and go to page 21-22) reads as follows:
(b) The conference report may be made by a majority of the House members of such conference committee and shall not be amended. If the Senate has a similar rule, only such matters as are in difference between the two houses shall be considered by the conferees, and the conference report shall deal only with such matters. If the Senate does not have a similar rule, a conference committee report which includes significant matters that were not in difference between the houses, shall be referred to a standing committee for its recommendation before further action by the House.
The matter at issue with this rule is the question of inserting new items into the conference report that were not in the versions of the bill passed by either body. The common sense principle is that conference committees established to work out the differences between the two houses ought not to be adding completely new provisions out of thin air that were never in either version of the bill.
Not surprisingly, the wild and crazy Senate has no rule barring such shenanigans, but the House (see above) does. The clear impact of this rule is to require, at a minimum, an additional House committee meeting (presumably of the Appropriations Committee) to consider the new provisions added by conferees.
This means that if, for instance, the final conference report has a provision on the construction of terminal groins along the coast (something that was not in either version of the budget) the House must have a committee meeting to consider and approve such an addition. And while such a meeting could, presumably, be put together in relatively short order, it does offer the prospect of at least some minimal public airing of the details of what is sure to be a massive, secretly negotiated document.
Let’s hope House Speaker Tim Moore does the right thing and enforces this rule.