l9n/ North Dakota

2011 Regular Session, 2011–2012

Senate Bill 2345

A BILL for an Act to provide for the department of commerce to conduct a sugar-based feedstock biofuel demonstration plant feasibility study; and to provide an appropriation.

Did not become law. It stopped in the House of Representatives on March 22, 2011. The 62nd Legislative Assembly has ended.

What it does

The synopsis the Legislative Assembly published with the bill.

A BILL for an Act to provide for the department of commerce to conduct a sugar-based feedstock biofuel demonstration plant feasibility study; and to provide an appropriation.

Sponsors

Who carried the bill in each chamber, and who signed on. Each name leads to the member's page.

In the Senate

5 co-sponsors

Joe Miller, Terry M. Wanzek, Duane DeKrey, Curt Hofstad, Joyce Kingsbury

Its course

January 25 to March 22, 2011, on one scale. In the top row each mark is a day something happened; taller marks are busier days.

Each committee stop sits inside its chamber.

Every action13 actions on 12 days

In the SenateJan 25 to Feb 2329 days

AgricultureJan 25 to Feb 713 days

AppropriationsFeb 8 to Feb 1810 days

In the House of RepresentativesFeb 23 to Mar 22 · stopped27 days

AgricultureMar 2 to Mar 2119 days

Votes

Yeas to nays, as the Legislative Assembly recorded them. Committee votes are set in.

  • Agriculture7–0

    Do pass as amended · Feb 7

  • Appropriations12–1

    Do pass · Feb 18

  • Senate, second reading46–0

    Passed · Feb 23

  • Agriculture10–2

    Do not pass · Mar 21 · 2 present

  • House of Representatives, second reading7–83

    Failed · Mar 22

Amendments

Each amendment offered, and what became of it.

  • Senate committee amendmentAdopted

    Adopted Feb 8

Text

Each version as the Legislative Assembly printed it.

l9n doesn't hold this bill's text yet.

What happened

In l9n's words, one line for each step. Every action as the Legislative Assembly published it is below.

In the Senate Jan 25 – Feb 23

  1. Jan 25Introduced and sent to Agriculture
  2. Feb 3Heard in Agriculture
  3. Feb 7Agriculture recommended it as amended, 7 to 0
  4. Feb 8Amended as the committee recommended
  5. Sent to Appropriations
  6. Feb 11Heard in Appropriations
  7. Feb 18Appropriations recommended it, 12 to 1
  8. Feb 23Passed the Senate, 46 to 0

In the House of Representatives Feb 24 – Mar 22

  1. Feb 24Arrived in the House of Representatives
  2. Mar 2Read a first time and sent to Agriculture
  3. Mar 17Heard in Agriculture
  4. Mar 21Agriculture recommended against it, 10 to 2
  5. Mar 22Failed in the House of Representatives, 7 to 83
All 13 actions, as published
  1. Jan 25Introduced, first reading, referred Agriculture CommitteeSenate
  2. Feb 3Committee Hearing 08:00Senate
  3. Feb 7Reported back amended, do pass, amendment placed on calendar 7 0 0Senate
  4. Feb 8Amendment adoptedSenate
  5. Feb 8Rereferred to AppropriationsSenate
  6. Feb 11Committee Hearing 09:00Senate
  7. Feb 18Reported back, do pass, place on calendar 12 1 0Senate
  8. Feb 23Second reading, passed, yeas 46 nays 0Senate
  9. Feb 24Received from SenateHouse of Representatives
  10. Mar 2Introduced, first reading, referred Agriculture CommitteeHouse of Representatives
  11. Mar 17Committee Hearing 10:00House of Representatives
  12. Mar 21Reported back, do not pass, placed on calendar 10 2 2House of Representatives
  13. Mar 22Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 7 nays 83House of Representatives