SB 105-13: Hubert H. Humphrey Helping Hand to the Homeless Act (Redraft Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Spark does an amazing job at establishing the need for a specific action in his first sections of bills, which I think is certainly a positive aspect towards improving legislation.

However, all that build up and then you get to get to section 2 and you are pumped for action and what do you see, a grant and some money.

I am not of a mind to discourage anyone, least of all in our present state, so I hope my words are taken as constructive analysis that it is, but the common feature that Spark needs to address going forward in legislation he offers is beefing up the content, interweaving a stronger utilization of existing agencies, modifying existing laws, providing more detail on implementation and administration and lastly, the budgetary aspects of how to fund it and when (with consideration for end of fiscal year and practicalities of introducing it immediately versus the next fiscal year as I have discussed frequently in the budget resolution thread).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Section 2 could use more detail.

Yeah, there should be some definitions as to exactly who qualifies for these grants and what they need to do other than vaguely “help homeless citizens”.

Then offer an amendment Senator.

Why shouldn't you do it because you made the original bill?

Technically you both have a point.

1. Bill sponsors should take a great deal of responsibility for their bills and while in some cases it might be reasonable to rely on the contributions of others, at some point there is a line that is crossed where the relying on contributions of expertise (like PiT crafting the formulas for Scott and I on health care) and instead relying on others to formulate the basic structure. I wrote most all of the supporting regulations for the exchanges and the transitions from existing programs (Parts I and III of the text), while Scott broke Atlascare down into Medicare like Parts (and yes having the Bill divided into "Parts" and the program in Part II likewise divided into "parts" both referring to different things was a source of confusion that could have been easily solved by using a different term like say "Article" on my part (pun intended) but I digress), dove into drug pricing and etc.

2. At the same time while the above is certainly true, there should be a greater willingness to offer amendments to address concerns, issues and the like with regards to bills and in recent times we have seen a lot of this be neglected in the modern era, and while having creative input and feedback is always helpful and certainly preferable to the alternative (which is to say complete silence in a bill thread, we most certainly don't want that), "drive by sniping" is not a desiring long term model for people to respond to bills and in the past there was a far greater willingness to offer amendments than at present time.

So in some ways, you are both correct here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would guess the previous amendment is passed.

What is next on this bill?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Very interesting vote breakdown.

Kind of reminds me of the fireworks vote in late 2014.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The redraft is passed if there is no objection by the sponsor.

Uh what?

That is not how that is suppose to work.

3.) If a redraft is presented, the original sponsor shall have 96 hours after it is offered to accept the redraft or reject it and request an override. If the redraft is rejected by the Senate, the sponsor may then either motion to resume debate on the bill or withdraw the bill from the floor. If the original sponsor shall have left the chamber, the presiding officer shall allow for someone to assume sponsorship as with a normal bill, with the 96 hours commencing after it is completed.

Step 1 (Underlined): If the sponsor accepts it, it proceeds to a vote of the whole Senate, if he rejects it and requests and override then it gets treated like a veto

step 2 (italics). "If the Senate rejects the redraft", sponsor may motion to resume debate or withdraw the bill from the floor.

The only way step two works is if step 1 is interpreted as I have above. It also the only way that is constitutional and the way this has been interpreted for years. Not voting on the redraft, would be an abandonment of legislative power to the executive branch under the Constitution.