Earlier in this forum, we discussed the legislative creature known as the proposed committee substitute, or PCS. This is a tool lawmakers use to incorporate proposed changes in legislation as it winds its way through the political process.
In a committee meeting, legislators can choose to consider the original bill, an adopted committee subsitute (which started life as a PCS in another committee), or a new PCS.
There’s nothing inherently bad about a PCS. It can help lawmakers correct typos or clean up unclear language. But in the wrong hands, a PCS can lead to situations in which the sponsor of a bill might end up opposing his own legislation.
Take this example from “Under the Dome”:
Rep. Marvin Lucas isn’t sure if he’s going to vote for his own bill.
When the Cumberland County Democrat first filed House Bill 359 in
February of 2007, it was entitled a bill to “Restore Flexibility to
School Calendar.”…
The bill passed the House in April of 2007, but when it came back
from the Senate this week all mentions of school calendars had been
stripped. The new title: “An Act to Promote American Citizenship
Efforts by Encouraging Voting by Eligible High School Students.”“It’s been gutted,” Lucas said. “It no longer bares any resemblance to the one we sent over.”
He said he’ll have to read the bill to see what’s in it before he
decides whether to vote to concur with the Senate version this
afternoon.
I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with either bill, or that Senate leaders attempted anything underhanded by gutting Lucas’ bill. What I’m saying is that the PCS opens the door to potential legislative mischief.
