Committee approves sending House Bill 223 to floor after debate on rule‑rejection authority

Representative Vito Barbieri, R‑Kootenai County, presented House Bill 223 to the House State Affairs Committee to clarify the legislature’s ability to reject administrative rules. Barbieri said the draft responds to confusion over whether one chamber can reject a rule without concurrence from the other chamber when a committee calls up a final rule already in effect.

Barbieri told members that the constitutional amendment and subsequent statutes allow a single chamber to reject a rule, but that his draft addresses committee‑level procedures when a committee calls up a final rule. He said the bill would require a concurrent resolution if a committee calls up a final rule and determines it does not comport with the empowering statute; the draft does not change the practice whereby a committee‑rejection of part of a proposed rule is referred to the full house.

Representative Daiger asked for clarification about temporary, proposed and final rules; Barbieri and others explained distinctions and noted another bill in the session would extend the life of a temporary rule past sine die. Representative Dygert and other members described past disputes where only one body had approved a controversial rule, which created implementation problems for state purchasing and health‑insurance contracting.

Representative Scott moved to send House Bill 223 to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation. The committee voted in favor by voice vote; the chair recorded the motion as carried and the committee adjourned.