The 'long bill' lives up to its name

It’s not called the long bill for nothing. State senators drafted a hefty 73 amendments for the big budget fight on the Senate floor Wednesday, making the debate mind-numbing sometimes even for those participating in it.

“This amendment,” Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, closed one argument before pausing and getting lost in the fog of the moment, “I forget if it makes sense or doesn’t make sense.”

Out of those amendments, a scant nine passed, most of those either adding footnotes directing how money be spent or stripping amendments from the budget put on in the House.

But one surprise amendment did emerge. After an unexpectedly quick debate, the Senate voted to take away money the governor had planned to use to fight a lawsuit over last year’s controversial mill levy freeze. The conservative Independence Institute has organized the lawsuit against the state, claiming the freeze was an illegal tax increase.

Ritter had asked for $150,000 next year to pay attorneys to fight the suit. Attorney General John Suthers, who would normally represent the governor, can’t do it because he has already come out against the mill levy freeze.

Instead, lawmakers put the $150,000 into wildland firefighting efforts.

“I about fell over in the back there,” a smiling Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, said afterward.

“I think that sent a message,” said Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray.

But, as with any of the amendments passed Wednesday, there came a dab of cynicism.

Capitol watchers often lament that the budget goes through a weeks-long waltz between the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee, the House and the Senate only to end up back where it started. Changes that are made in both chambers during the dance almost always go back to the Joint Budget Committee members – this time appointed as a conference committee to work out differences – who may compromise on the changes or may put the budget back to the way they originally had it.

Brophy said he expects the governor to get the lawsuit money back in the conference committee, and Ritter’s spokesman seemed unconcerned about the news.

“It’s a dynamic process,” Evan Dreyer, Ritter’s spokesman, said.

One of the arguments Joint Budget Committee member Steve Johnson, R-Fort Collins, made Wednesday for stripping the House amendments is that it gives the Senate leverage to negotiate in the conference committee. As in, I’ll put your amendment back in if you let my amendment stay.

“It’s good strategy,” he said early in the day.

Even if an amendment makes it through to the governor’s desk, there’s no guarantee it will stay in there. Ritter vetoed a number of budget footnotes last year, arguing that it’s his branch’s prerogative on how precisely to spend the money.

But nonetheless, Senators lined up with their amendments Wednesday. The large majority of the amendments, 56, came from Republicans, who sought to scrape together money for a rainy-day fund or send more money to transportation. Eleven were from Democrats, and six were bi-partisan.

Sen. Tom Wiens, R-Castle Rock, was the amendment king, drafting 13, several of which were later withdrawn and all of which sought to direct money to draining a flooded mining tunnel near Leadville. One of the amendments passed, creating a footnote that tells the Department of Local Affairs to seriously consider using $2 million to build a pipeline from the tunnel.

After all the amendments, about $6.4 million was shuffled around from one area to another in the budget. And, from the looks on the senators’ faces at the end of the day, it was hard to tell which took the worst of it: the budget that got pulled and prodded or the lawmakers who did it.

“This conversation is about tough choices,” Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said at one point during the debate Wednesday. “It’s about tough choices between two very important needs of our state. That’s the conversation we’re having around every amendment down here.”

Bookmark/Search this post with: