TESTIMONY OF STATE REP. STEVE SAMUELSON, 135th DISTRICT
SPEAKER’S COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE REFORM
JANUARY 31, 2007
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and thanks to Speaker O’Brien for creating this commission on legislative reform.
1. Representatives must be present to vote
My first suggestion concerns Rule 64 and the requirement that Representatives be present in the Hall of the House to vote. As you know, this rule was changed on January 31, 2005 – two years ago today – to allow “Harrisburg Legislative Leave” in which a representative could still vote even if they were somewhere else in the broadly defined “Harrisburg area.”
In March 2005, I was the prime sponsor of legislation to remove this ghost voting provision and restore the previous rule that Representatives be present in the Hall of the House to vote. I am thankful to the 57 co-sponsors who joined me in sponsoring House Resolution 159 of 2005. Our efforts to eliminate ghost voting were not successful in the last session, but our cause continued to gain strength and this year the leaders of both caucuses embraced this reform.
Two days ago, “Harrisburg Legislative Leave” was eliminated when the House adopted our temporary rules. I view the elimination of ghost voting as the first major step to reform, and I ask that you maintain the requirement that Representatives be present to vote when permanent Rules are recommended in March.
The number one job our constituents send us to Harrisburg to do is to be present when legislation is discussed and debated on the floor of the House. No other business should interfere with this primary responsibility. No other meeting should interfere. I know there are proposals which envision a new system of proxy voting with shorter periods of absence from the floor, but this still would involve a legislator being away from the House floor when the people’s business is conducted.
I believe that the best solution is to maintain the requirement which has been reinstated by our two-day-old temporary rules – Representatives should be present in the Hall of the House to vote.
2. End the midnight sessions
A fundamental reform which is necessary for open government is an end to the midnight sessions. In the past, you and I have seen many significant votes brought up in the middle of the night by Leadership in the House and Senate.
· The 2005 pay raise vote was at 2 a.m.
· The year before, the slot machine law was passed at 1:39 a.m.
· The same night, a tax reform measure was voted at 2:58 a.m.
· And the 2004-05 budget was voted at 5 a.m. – just 90 minutes after it was in print.
This is no way to conduct business and the midnight sessions have to stop. When bills are brought up in the wee hours of the morning, the legislation gets longer and the deliberations get shorter. I remember one year when a 200-page transportation bill came back from the Senate and was called up for a vote about 20 minutes after the representatives got copies in the wee hours of the morning. No human being could have read the bill in the time allotted.
Just last fall we saw the Senate pass two bills in the middle of the night – and they made two glaring errors. They had to redo the lobbyist disclosure bill a few days later because they passed the wrong version of the bill at 3 a.m. And the House had to correct a late night Senate error which would have allowed campaign contributions by applicants for harness racing licenses – a practice that is prohibited.
Legislation must be considered openly and honestly in the light of day. We should enable the free and open discussion of ideas and not diminish debate with late night sessions. I believe that our Rules should state clearly that no business should be conducted between the hours of Midnight and 8 a.m. I could also support an earlier time limit such as the Senate’s new 10 p.m. curfew, or the 11 p.m. limit that existed in the House rules 20 years ago. A ban on late night sessions will lead to better legislation and should be included in the new House rules.
I would take this reform even further and I will be proposing a Constitutional Amendment to place the ban on midnight legislative sessions in the state Constitution.
I know that House Rules can be suspended, and we have seen the Rules suspended all too often. The 2 a.m. pay raise vote followed a vote at 1:59 a.m. to suspend the Rules to allow that legislation to be brought up. That 5 a.m. budget vote followed a vote a few minutes earlier to suspend the provision in the House Rules which is supposed to allow at least 24 hours for consideration of the final version of the budget.
Putting a ban on midnight sessions in the state constitution is a long-term solution, but the problem of midnight sessions is not a new problem. And Harrisburg is not the only place this happens. This practice dates back to the time of King George, and was one of the things that Thomas Jefferson strenuously objected to in our Declaration of Independence. One of the grievances that Jefferson enumerated was the following:
“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”
In recent years, it has been our own Legislative Leaders who try to fatigue us into action, and the practice of midnight sessions must stop. Placing a ban on late night sessions in the House Rules is a huge improvement and a significant milestone of reform. To borrow a phrase from the Declaration, the benefits of this action are “self-evident.” Our legislative process will improve dramatically, and this change can be enacted immediately.
I also believe that making the ban on midnight sessions part of our constitution will ensure that this commitment to open government will continue. And this will lead to a better legislative process and better legislation five years from now, 20 years from now, and 50 years from now – no matter who is in office at the time. This is a long-term reform we should embrace. Thank you.