The House agenda changed once again on the floor in the Special Session held on Wednesday this week.  The following items were added/deleted:

HOUSE BILLS

• HB 16-84:  to increase funding for the health, education, and welfare of the CNMI people by reducing the salaries of eleted officials.  (Rep. Ralph Torres + others)

HOUSE LOCAL BILLS

• HLB 16-9:  To reappropriate $500,000 from the $1,760,425 under Saipan Local Law 15-5 SHEFA for the payment of salaries of certain government employees (Rep. Dave Apatang)

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

• SCR 16-13, from the Judiciary and Governmental Operations Committee, recommending the filing of House Bills 16-25 (to require the advice and consent of the Senate for Medical Professional Licensing Board professionals); 16-34 (to amend the Open Government Act to provide specific statutory authorization for executive sessions to be held for the governing body of an agency to conduct executive deliberations); 16-45 (to amend 4 CMC Section 8158 to allow customers of CUC who succeed in their complaint in court to receive his or her costs and attorney fees); and 16-46 (to require that all statutes and rules and regulations pertaining to CUC be readily available for review by consumers).  REMOVED FROM AGENDA.

HOUSE RESOLUTIONS

• HR 16-13:  requesting the Saipan Zoning Board to change the present zoning classification of Vestcor Commercial Building in which the brewery is located from “Village Commercial” to “Mixed Commercial” for the purposes of reopening the brewery adjacent to Coffee Care.
• HR 16-14:  respectfully requesting the office of the United States Fish and Wildlife to remove and reclassify the Nightingale Reed-Warbler under the endangered species list (Rep. Stanley Torres, Oscar Babauta, Justo Quitugua, )

ACTION TAKEN

• House Resolution 16-14 (see above) was referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
• House Resolution 16-13 was ADOPTED, with two no votes (Rep. Ed Salas and myself)
• Senate Joint Resolution 16-3, HD 1, to call for a Joint Session of the Legislature to receive  was PASSED BY THE HOUSE
• House Bill 16-3, to amend 4 CMC Section 1301 to earmark Gross Receipts Taxes collected from gambling establishments in the First Senatorial District so they may be appropriated by the Legislative Delegation from the Third Senatorial District was PASSED BY THE HOUSE.
• House Bill 16-79, HD2, SD2, deleted the Senate amendment to suspend for 60 days, rather than repeal, Public Law 15-94 (the rollback of the CUC power rates).  The bill was returned to its original form and SENT BACK TO THE SENATE.   
• House Bill 16-4, the CNMI Government and Public Deposit Safety Act of 2008 was amended to: 1) include a grandfathering provision for banks not in compliance on the effect date of the Act, provided that the bank furnishes and pledges security in the form of U.S. Treasury bills valued at 100% of the deposits, comes into compliance with the Act within 10 years of the effective date, and issues disclosures of public deposits on a quarterly basis; 2) mandate (rather than merely empower) the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Finance to issue regulations to enforce the Act; and 3) expand the types of loans offered to Commonwealth residents to include educational student loans and loans for renewable energy and energy efficiency (as a basis for giving preference to particular banks among those that meet the requirements of the Act).  The bill was PASSED BY THE HOUSE.     

COMMENTS

On the zoning resolution (HR 16-13)

I voted no on the zoning resolution (HR 16-13) for the same reason that I voted no on a similar resolution passed in the last session: I felt that the House was once again exerting inappropriate influence on the Zoning Board to amend the Saipan Zoning Plan on behalf of one particular company, when there is already a process in place that allows people to appeal to the Board to consider amendments to the Plan, and in fact, the Board is already entertaining such requests at this time.  We should respect the laws that we have created and the processes that are in place, and allow agencies to do their jobs. 

On the reed warbler resolution (HR 16-14)

I voted yes to the motion to send the reed warbler resolution (HR 16-14) to the Natural Resources committee for review.  If we had actually taken a vote on the resolution that day, I would have voted no.  I was, to say the least, rather disturbed by the resolution, and asked the Natural Resources committee to consider in its review of the resolution that 1) the nightingale reed warbler is a unique species found only in the Northern Marianas; 2) the warbler is an important part of the CNMI’s natural and cultural heritage; 3) that the protection of endangered species helps to protect, not only the species, but the unique habitats in which they are found; and 4) that the protection of endangered species does not necessarily inhibit development, provided that the required environmental assessments and mitigation plans are properly carried out.  Economic development and environmental protection can coexist, and indeed can complement each other. 

On the amendment to HB 16-79

I voted yes to the motion to delete the Senate amendment to HB 16-79 and return the bill to the Senate in its original form.  The Senate had amended HB 16-79 so that there would only be a 60-day suspension, rather than a repeal, of PL 15-94 (the rollback of the CUC rates to 17 cents/kwh), with the intent of spurring the newly-formed Public Utilities Commission to set a new rate structure. 

There seemed to be a general consensus in the House that it was impractical to expect the PUC to be prepared to set rates within 60 days, but there was some debate on the floor about whether or not we should just pass the bill as it was, knowing that we would have to return to the problem in 60 days to either give the PUC an extension or finally just repeal PL 15-94 as the House had originally intended.  An argument was made that rejecting the Senate amendment would further delay the passage of the bill, and there was an urgency in passing the bill as soon as possible, however imperfect it might be.  I stated that the PUC members were not qualified to set utility rates yet, and needed to undergo intensive training; they were on the waiting list for rate-setting school scheduled in May and November, with no guarantee that they would actually be admitted. Another member noted that the PUC does not even have basic office supplies, or even an office yet.  I said that to pass this bill with the Senate amendment would essentially be setting up the PUC for failure, and if we knew that, we should correct it.  I also said that the Senate had not been aware of these constraints when the amendment was passed.  It was suggested that the House leadership confer with the Senate leadership to request their support for the bill in its original form.  Most of the members agreed, and voted to delete the Senate amendment and return the bill in its original form to the Senate.  The “no” votes included Reps. Diego Benavente and Joseph Reyes.

On HB 16-4 

I eventually voted yes on HB 16-4, as amended, although I shared concerns with other members about the depositing of public funds in banks that are not FDIC-insured.  The amendment to grandfather such banks was a problem for some of us because it raised questions about why public funds were deposited in such banks in the first place if the solvency of the banks would be in jeopardy should these funds be withdrawn.  Proponents of the bill argued that requiring security, setting a reasonable timeframe for compliance, and also requiring public disclosure of government and public corporation deposits would help protect public funds without creating a crisis for banks that presently hold these funds. 

On the push to override the veto on the austerity bill

There was a rather strong push from some members to attempt to override the Governor’s veto on HB 16-83, HD 5 — the austerity bill.  It was argued that overriding the veto was urgent to ensure the delivery of public services, and that the deficiencies of the bill that the Governor had identified could be addressed in subsequent bills.  Other members disagreed, and said that instead a new austerity bill should be drafted that provided a clear expenditure plan with a purpose (say, a fuel subsidy), using any savings realized as a result of the austerity measures, rather than simply handing the Governor a “blank check.”  I remarked that the public outcry over the austerity bill stemmed primarily from the fact that it was fast-tracked through the Legislature without public comment, was fundamentally unfair in that it exempted many individuals (including lawmakers), and did not do enough to cut obvious government fat, such as the perks that many public officials continue to enjoy.

I also said that by now it should be clear that we cannot both protect government payroll and critical public services.  Public services are already falling apart, and still government payroll remains essentially the same.  Indeed, most, if not all, of the employees who were supposed to be furloughed last Friday – ostensibly as a result of the governor’s veto of the austerity bill — were somehow renewed that very day, even as this government can barely pay for fuel to keep the lights on.   

The bottom line is that we have to come to grips with our fiscal reality.  And we have to be honest with our people about the cuts that need to be made.

**

ANNOUNCEMENTS

• The Judiciary and Governmental Operations Committee meeting scheduled for 10am today has been postponed until further notice.
• Click here for the final agenda for the Saipan and Northern Islands Delegation session on Monday, April 21 @ 9:00am.

For questions or comments, I can be reached at 664-8931 or 483-3935, or at this email address.