Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appropriations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House recalls $200,000 National Guard tuition bill after fiscal-note objection
Summary
Lawmakers recalled Senate Bill 40 from the Senate after members noted a $200,000 fiscal note and objected that it should not have been on the consent calendar; sponsors had previously won a 63–0 floor vote but the House later sent the bill to the Rules Committee for fiscal review.
House members recalled Senate Bill 40 — a measure providing $200,000 in ongoing tuition assistance for Utah National Guard members — after lawmakers objected to its placement on the consent calendar because of a fiscal note.
Senate Bill 40, described on the floor as a reimbursement program that would provide up to $1,000 per year to qualifying National Guard students, initially cleared the chamber in a unanimous voice vote. ‘‘Having received 63 yes votes and 0 no votes,’’ the reading clerk announced after the roll call, and the bill appeared to pass on that basis.
Several representatives objected to the placement. Representative Alexander said the bill ‘‘should not have been on the consent calendar’’ because it carries a $200,000 fiscal note, and moved to recall it from the Senate. The motion to recall was granted on the House floor; the House then instructed that SB 40 and other bills with fiscal notes above the $10,000 committee threshold be sent to the Rules Committee for prioritization and fiscal review.
A subsequent motion directed that SB 40 be handled through the rules process ‘‘due to fiscal impact and for consideration of the prioritization process,’’ a step sponsors and fiscal staff said is the normal route for measures carrying larger fiscal effects.
What happens next: the bill is in the Rules Committee for further fiscal scrutiny and scheduling, which could include a committee hearing on the House side or changes to the appropriation language. The transcript records the recall and the committee referral but does not contain a later House floor vote on the revised bill.
Why it matters: lawmakers flagged a procedural concern — bills with nontrivial costs were appearing on the consent calendar (where measures typically have minimal debate). By recalling SB 40 and routing it to rules, the House ensured fuller fiscal review before final enactment or conference with the Senate.
Attribution: Statements in this article are taken from House floor remarks recorded on the House transcript: the roll-call announcement that SB 40 had ‘‘received 63 yes votes and 0 no votes’’ and Representative Alexander’s motion to recall the bill citing the $200,000 fiscal note. The transcript does not record the final disposition of the bill after Rules Committee consideration.
