This is to announce that the House will be having a session today, Thursday, October 23 @ 1:30pm in the House Chamber. CLICK HERE for the draft agenda. We are likely to take up the Senate’s budget version for FY 2009. Click here for the Senate’s budget proposal, and click here for the Senate Fiscal Affairs committee report.
Also, the Senate Committee on Resources, Economic Development, and Programs has rescheduled to November 13, 2008 @ 10am in the Senate Chamber. Public Lands Secretary John Del Rosario and Assistant Attorney General Brad Huesman have been summoned as witnesses.
Finally, the Saipan and Northern Islands Legislative Delegation will be having a session on November 12, 2008 in the House Chamber. There is no agenda available yet, but we are likely to take up proposed amendments to the Saipan Zoning Law. For more information, contact SNILD Chairman Rep. Ramon Tebuteb at 664-8983.
The following meetings will be held in the Legislature this week:
Also, next Monday, October 20 @ 11am in the House Chamber, a joint House and Senate meeting is scheduled with three White House representatives to discuss the proposed CNMI National Marine Sanctuary.
Here are the highlights from the House sessions last week and this week, and some of my comments:
CUC PRIVATIZATION BILL, HB 16-77, HS1, HD6, SD1 BECOMES PL 16-17 THRU VETO OVERRIDE
I voted against the veto override, for several key reasons. First, as even the proponents of the veto override acknowledged, the bill itself was flawed. I expressed concerns particularly about:
But where the majority of members felt comfortable overriding the veto with the knowledge that “we can always come back and amend the law,” I strongly felt that we should instead go back to the drawing board to produce a better bill, holding public hearings and taking into account the numerous comments and concerns we had received from the business sector, the Public Auditor, the administration, CUC, and many concerned citizens. I noted that this would be at least the third attempt to privatize CUC, and that every time that effort has failed the credibility of the government has taken a major blow. I said that if we are going to embark on the road to privatization again, then this time around we should take every effort to ensure that we do it right.
I also took exception with the arguments that the proponents of the veto override presented, that the override was necessary in order to prevent the governor from declaring another state of emergency that would justify the issuance of a sole source privatization contract for CUC. Several members actually suggested that the legislature is helpless to do anything about emergency declarations of the governor, no matter how questionable. Some even described the governor’s actions as outright abuses of power. I said that if the issue is a runaway governor who is abusing his power, then we absolutely do have the constitutional authority as legislators to challenge those abuses. We could pass legislation that explicitly prohibits sole-source full privatization of CUC, for example, or formally investigate the governor’s actions and begin impeachment proceedings. But overriding the governor’s veto on a flawed privatization bill would not accomplish the objectives of 1) protecting a potentially valuable and critically important public asset, and of 2) holding the governor accountable for abuses of power.
A few members, including Rep. Frank Dela Cruz and I, also expressed worries about the mixed signals that the veto override might send to the federal government, and particularly the Dept. of Interior, at a time when we are asking for, among other things, technical assistance (including an independent professional assessment of the power plant facilities); federal funding (nearly $4million in the immediate term for the overhaul of two engines — to do the work that DCM had failed to complete); and assistance securing environmental permits for a possible new power plant facility using heavy fuel oil, which is significantly cheaper than the diesel that we currently use.
Just days before the session, Mr. Nik Pula of the Office of Insular Affairs had met with the legislature to discuss the CNMI’s power issues. He had noted that this was at least the third attempt by the CNMI government to privatize CUC, and he cautioned against repeating the mistakes of the past. He had also said that the CNMI’s leaders needed to present a detailed plan to secure federal assistance for power crisis, and he had even suggested that if the legislature pushed through with the veto override, then perhaps the CNMI didn’t really need OIA’s assistance. Rep. Dela Cruz and I both argued that such statements should give us compelling reason to reconsider overriding the governor’s veto. But other members, including Vice Speaker Deleon Guerrero, dismissed these concerns, and said he felt confident that OIA would still be willing to assist us even if we did move forward with the override. Then we went to vote.
The override passed with a vote of 15-3. The only House members to vote no to the veto override were Reps. Ed Salas, Frank Dela Cruz, and myself. The three of us had also voted against the original bill. Rep. Oscar Babauta abstained. Rep. Ray Yumul was absent.
APPROPRIATIONS BILLS PASSED IN THE HOUSE
1. HB 16-179 – introduced on October 1 and passed by the House on October 2 with a vote of 15-4, the appropriations bill for FY 09 proposed to give lump sum appropriations with maximum reprogramming flexibility to the expenditure authorities. Numerous amendments were made on the floor, mostly correcting errors and clarifying the administrative provisions of the bill. A significant (and, I thought, prudent and timely) amendment offered by Rep. Diego Benavente and accepted by a majority of the members was to prohibit the use of public funds for the governor’s lawsuit against federalization; only Rep. Vic Hocog expressed strong opposition to the amendment. Rep. Oscar Babauta objected to language in the bill that required a joint resolution from the legislature to fill positions certified by expenditure authorities as essential. Rep. Ed Salas and I objected to the approach of granting lump sum appropriations, rather than working out a detailed budget. I felt that such an approach to the budget amounted to an abdication of our responsibilities as legislators; Rep. Salas, for his part, observed that the House was proposing to give the governor control of over $75million. I also expressed concern about the fact that members were given the benefit of little more than one day to review the budget for the entire government, and noted that some errors had already been caught during the deliberations — how many more errors would be caught after the vote?
The only members to vote no to the bill were Reps. Hocog, Salas, Babauta, and myself.
2. HB 16-165– appropriating $111K from the Developers Infrastructure Tax Fund, $86K of which would go towards paving the parking areas of Kagman High and Koblerville Elementary; $15K of which would go toward the rehabilitation of the Kagman baseball field; and $10K of which would go towards the Veterans Cemetery. During the discussion I noted that the bill had just been introduced the day before, that members had not been given enough time to review the merits of the bill, and requested that we defer action until our session the following week. The request was voted down by the members. I was the only one to vote no.
3. HB 16-171, HS1 – reappropriating $120,000 from fund balances appropriated to Precinct 2 projects under Saipan Local Law 14-11, and granting $20k to Karidat, for the House of Manhoben; $25k to the NMC bookstore for renovations; and $75,906 for a road project in Precinct 1. The original bill had proposed to reappropriate only $20,000 to Karidat, which had been forced to shut down the youth center after certain key grants had expired and been reduced. I had supported the original bill, after speaking with the author and also a representative of Karidat, and ascertaining that the source of funding was coming from Precinct 2 and going right back into the same precinct. That particular House session started late due to a power outage, and I had stepped out of the chamber for a few minutes before the session started and as other members were still filing in. By the time I had returned the substitute bill had been introduced and placed on the calendar and the roll call vote had started. I was not informed about the substitute bill when I asked for clarification (I was only told, “the Karidat bill”), and so voted yes to the substitute bill.
This particular vote bothered my conscience a great deal when I realized what had happened, and I said as much in brief remarks delivered to the House at the following session. Although my “no” vote would not have changed the outcome (the bill would have passed overwhelmingly anyway), it was still a hard lesson for this freshman legislator. Though I am always disappointed by the gamesmanship and lack of due diligence that we often demonstrate in the House on appropriations bills, I was also frankly disappointed in myself for letting my guard down and trusting in the information I had been given on a bill that was being voted on.
VETO OVERRIDE ON SB 16-16, HD1 FAILS TO PASS
Senate Bill 16-16, HD1 proposed to amend the Public Lands Act of 2006 to establish Deputy Secretaries for the Dept of Public Lands for Rota and Tinian. The deputy secretaries would have been paid for by the DPL, but would be appointed by the mayors and confirmed by the municipal councils, and also removable by the mayors for any reason. The governor had vetoed this bill because he believed that it conflicted with the constitution. Only the Dept of Public Lands (formerly the Marianas Public Lands Authority) has the constitutional authority to administer public lands CNMI-wide, and this bill proposed to essentially give some of this authority to the municipal governments.
Enough members agreed with the governor to prevent a veto override. These members included: Reps. Frank Dela Cruz, Heinz Hofschneider, Ray Palacios, Ed Salas, Stanley Torres, and myself. I had also voted against the original bill for the same reason.
OTHER BILLS PASSED IN THE HOUSE
1. HB 16-176, Health Care Professions Board
Rep. Vic Hocog introduced a bill similar to one that had just been vetoed by the governor for technical errors. The bill proposes to require the advice and consent of the Senate for appointments to the Health Care Professions Licensing Board. It passed unanimously in the House.
2. HB 16-174, Salary Cap for Professionals
This bill had also been vetoed by the governor due to a lack of clarity in the definition of “professionals” for the legislature and judiciary. We deliberated on the governor’s comments, and also on comments about other ambiguities in the bill. A similar but clearer version of the bill was introduced by Rep. Hofschneider and the Speaker, and passed by a majority in the House. Only Rep. Stanley Torres abstained.
3. HB 16-47, Indoor Smoking Ban
Several public hearings were held on all three islands, and for the most part comments submitted on the bill were very supportive. The bill was amended on the floor to allow restaurants with attached bars to opt for the exemption from the smoking ban after established dining hours or 10pm, whichever is earlier (the bill had previously exempted only bars, not restaurants with attached bars). 15 members voted yes on the bill including myself; Reps. Hocog and Reyes abstained; Rep. Stanley Torres voted no.
4. HB 16-174, Dept of Public Health and Public School System professionals
This bill proposed to allow DPH and PSS certain exemptions under the CNMI labor law to hire noncitizen professionals for positions that are difficult to recruit. In DPH’s case, the bill would permit the hospital to retain its U.S.-licensed (but non-U.S. citizen) emergency room doctor, and greater flexibility to hire other critically-needed non-U.S. citizen medical professionals including doctors and nurses. In PSS’s case, the bill would facilitate the recruiting and hiring of non-U.S. citizen special education instructors and foreign language instructors. All members present voted yes to this bill, including myself.
5. HB 16-143, Special Judges
This bill proposed to prohibit the appointment to Special Judge of any former judge who was not retained in an election. I had initially worried, along with a few other members, that the bill was politically motivated. Rep. Stanley Torres, the author of the bill, argued briefly but persuasively that the will of the people should be respected — and a judge who is not retained in an election should not be considered for Special Judge appointments. All members present voted yes to the bill, including myself.
6, HB 16-66, NMC Board of Regents Autonomy
This bill proposed to grant the NMC Board of Regents greater autonomy in recruiting and hiring the college president, and setting the terms of the contract. Existing law requires that the initial term of a president’s contract be for two years only; such requirements infringing on the autonomy of the board were identified as a concern by WASC. Most of the members present voted yes to this bill, including myself; only Rep. Stanley Torres abstained.
JOINT RESOLUTIONS/COMMITTEE REPORT ON FEDERALIZATION
The House adopted two joint resolutions (HJR 16-14 and HJR 16- ) requesting that China and Russia be included in the special visa waiver program for Guam and the CNMI, and requesting that the all of the CNMI’s existing foreign investors (both the perpetual investor permit holders and the long-term business permit holders) be included into the foreign investor transitional program.
The House also adopted a joint committee report, which was adopted at a recent Senate session as well, which recommended against appropriating any public funds for the governor’s lawsuit against federalization, and which further recommended the Legislature’s pro-active cooperation, negotiation, and consultation with the federal agencies as the new immigration regulations are being drafted.
COMMITTEE REPORTS ADOPTED
ON HARRY BLALOCK’S FOOD FOR THOUGHTWe spent an inordinate amount of time (at least an hour) at one of the sessions talking about Mr. Harry Blalock’s recent radio commentary criticizing the Legislature for its opposition to the proposed marine monument in the Northern Islands. Rep. Stanley Torres requested that the Legislature formally censure him and write letters to his employer complaining about his harsh remarks; other members agreed and called Mr. Blalock a “disrespectful,” “un-Christian,” and ”un-American,” “outsider.” I was appalled and said we should expect and welcome criticism in our line of work as legislators – and moreover that we should evaluate whether there might be any merit to the criticism. I also remarked that some of the criticisms that have been levelled against elected officials include xenophobia (fear of ”outsiders”), intolerance of free speech, and petty vindictiveness, and that our comments and threats only give credence to such criticisms. Rep. Hofschneider argued that the best way to respond to criticism is to prove the critic wrong — and that if our contention is that we can protect those northern waters better than “outsiders” then we should do it ourselves by law or constitutional amendment. The Speaker, to his credit, finally put an end to the discussion and said members should accept criticism and try not to be so sensitive.
***
As always, I welcome comments and questions. I can be reached at 664-8931 or 285-3935.
Thanks very much for reading this far.
Bad Behavior has blocked 632 access attempts in the last 7 days.