Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates and amends filing-deadline bill as sponsor frames it a 'management tool'
Summary
Lawmakers revived and amended Senate Bill 1, a proposal to require agencies to submit legislation requests by Dec. 1 to reduce in-session filings. Members adopted multiple amendments altering drafting-approval thresholds and debated priorities for agency versus legislator requests before the bill passed and was sent back to the Senate.
The Utah House resumed consideration of Senate Bill 1 on Feb. 9, 1995, reviving the measure after a motion to reconsider carried and adopting several amendments before passing the bill and returning it to the Senate for concurrence.
The sponsor (unnamed in the floor transcript) described the bill as "simply a management tool" intended to reduce the number of bills introduced during the session by pushing agency-requested bills to an earlier, Dec. 1, filing deadline. The sponsor told members the policy had, as an internal practice earlier this session, cut in-session bill filings by about 50 percent and said the change would free staff to focus on work already before the Legislature.
Members adopted multiple amendments. One amendment changed drafting-approval mechanics so that one house — rather than two — need approve drafting, and it lowered an internal threshold from a two-thirds vote to a majority for that approval. Another amendment clarified that agency-requested bills should not be given higher priority than legislator requests (the amendment used intent language rather than statutory language). Debate focused on how the House would implement the intent language in practice and how to protect individual legislators' priorities when agency bills arrive early.
Opponents raised concerns that moving the deadline or privileging agency requests could disadvantage legislators whose requests come later; supporters argued the change would reduce last-minute, lengthy agency submissions and encourage departments to prepare bills earlier. On a final recorded count in the floor transcript the clerk announced the result as "Senate bill 156 yes votes, 5 no votes passed this body before the senate for their concurrence" as read on the House floor record.
The House then moved on to further business and committee assignments. Because the transcript does not attach a clear personal name to the bill sponsor in the on‑the‑floor remarks, reporting here attributes substantive statements to the sponsor as recorded in the floor transcript rather than to a named member.
