House again rejects Rep. Nate's move to call his personal bill on grocery tax, this time on 55-11 vote after 45-minute debate

When Nate moved to call his personal bill to the floor from the House Ways & Means Committee, where personal bills are assigned, Rep. Joe Palmer,  R-Meridian, immediately moved to excuse the committee from the call, beating Ways & Means Chairman Paul Amador, R-Coeur d'Alene, to the punch.

Palmer said he seldom speaks out in the House, and doesn't care for debating. But, he said, "I have been here now for 14 years ... I've learned a lot."

"I've learned the importance of this experiment of government," he said. "And I've learned that if we follow it and watch history and learn what people have done before, then we will have a better process. ... We all think we're here, we know all the answers, we know how to do things right." But he said there have been "a lot of good people here before us," and there'll be many more after. 

"This process works," Palmer said. "There is procedures for a reason. ... Please support this motion and let's get on with the people's business and what we need to do."

Numerous bills were lined up on the House's calendar for debate today; few were taken up, due to the time spent on this debate.

Rep. Karey Hanks,  R-St. Anthony, debated twice in favor of Nate's call. "I believe we need to bring this to the floor," she said. "I don't know what's holding some of you back."

In her second debate, she said, "There's a bunch of us that are saying let's listen to our constituents and get this bill on the floor."

Rep. Steve Berch, D-Boise, said he'd supported Nate on his previous attempts, but was drawing the line. "I think enough is enough," he said.

When Nate tried to ask a question of Amador, Amador refused to yield to the question, an unusual but not unheard-of move. The last time Nate tried this parliamentary maneuver, earlier this week, he ended up shouting his debate at the House.

Nate said he believes that his personal bill deserves a vote. "We shouldn't have to rely on getting elected to seven terms to finally get something done," he said, drawing one of many objections in the House today.

"I am only pushing the line because I am saying what is not to be spoken," Nate declared, "and that is the tradition here, is that things are done a certain way and you cannot speak against them. ...  You're speaking against procedures that have not served the citizens well."

Rep. John McCrostie, D-Garden City, said he came into the House at the same time as Nate. During his first term in 2016, he said, "I brought a bill ... and introduced it as a personal bill. ... It had to do with electronic voter registration."

"Part of what we do in introducing personal bills is we get those bills out into the universe for people to mull over," McCrostie told the House. "That year, there was a senator who picked up that idea. It was a Republican senator, and he worked the bill, he created a better bill than the one that I had. He was able to find bipartisan support within the Senate, found bipartisan support in the House, and that is why we have electronic voter registration today. I had an idea, put it on paper, someone else picked it up and made it better."

After an objection was overruled, McCrostie continued, "We keep getting back to this 'Groundhog Day' situation. ... We think that this is 'the bill' and we keep calling it up every day. I don't think we need to do this. No means no. ... If we want to advance legislation, then let's take what we know we don't agree on, make it better and bring that bill forward."

Rep. Greg Chaney, R-Caldwell, said, "I count 27 bills on 3rd Reading. ... We have far better things to do with the people's time and tax dollars than grandstanding campaigning. We need to be done with this nonsense."

Nate objected, but Chaney had already taken his seat.

Rep. Julie Yamamoto, R-Caldwell, said, "I was told that this was a legitimate way to bring a bill to the floor, so I asked when was the last time this happened, and I was told it was in 2004." She said it may have been so long because the regular process works.

"For every email that you get that wants you to do one thing, there's somebody else that's sending you another email that demands just the opposite," she said, "and we're  asked to represent all those people. I would prefer not to get in the habit of overriding the process wherein there's a time for the pubic to weigh in. ... So I would ask that you not bring that bill up in that way."

There were repeated references in the debate to the House rules, which allow a call for a bill like the one Nate's been making. "This is the proper process," said Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale. "I understand everyone's patience is about shot on this, but if this is the only method you have ... I guess this is the way we have to do it."

Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, said she's willing to call for the bill every day. "I think it's irresponsible for a committee chairman to suppress voices like this," she said, drawing an objection from House GOP Caucus Chair Megan Blanksma, R-Hammett.

Though Scott and Nate contended Amador is holding Nate's personal bill up on his own, all personal bills in the House are assigned to the Ways & Means Committee by custom,  as has been done for a number of years; none of those get hearings. Regular bills go to committees that oversee the topic area and undergo an introductory hearing in which the committee votes on whether or not to introduce them. The personal bill process allows an individual lawmaker to bypass that and introduce a bill on their own.

Rep. Lori McCann, R-Lewiston, addressing Nate, said he'd followed the House rule, "you brought it to the floor, and the floor has said no. Doing this over and over, all it is doing is delaying the process that we have to get through," including a long list of bills awaiting action in the House. "Unfortunately you did not get your way," McCann said. "So it can't be like a child continually beating their head on the floor." At that, House Speaker Scott Bedke cautioned McCann about her debate, and she apologized.

"I just think we need to move forward," she said. "We voted no, and we need to move on."