Legislature(1995 - 1996)
1995-04-10 House Journal
Full Journal pdf1995-04-10 House Journal Page 1214 HB 32 The following was read the second time: HOUSE BILL NO. 32 "An Act relating to administrative proceedings involving a determination of eligibility for a permanent fund dividend or authority to claim a dividend on behalf of another." with the: Journal Page STA RPT CS(STA) 5DP 2NR 333 FISCAL NOTE (REV) 333 JUD RPT CS(STA) 6DP 726 FISCAL NOTE (REV) 2/13/95 726 FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 2DNP 4NR 835 FISCAL NOTE (REV) 2/13/95 836 Representative Vezey moved and asked unanimous consent that the following committee substitute be adopted in lieu of the original bill: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 32(FIN) "An Act relating to administrative proceedings involving a determination of eligibility for a permanent fund dividend or authority to claim a dividend on behalf of another; and providing for an effective date." There being no objection, it was so ordered. Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representative Finkelstein: Page 1, line 9: Delete "a $25" Insert "an" Page 2, line 3: Delete "$25" 1995-04-10 House Journal Page 1215 HB 32 Page 2, line 5, after "(i)": Insert "The appeal fee required under (g) of this section shall be set by regulation of the department in an amount that is not less than $25 nor more than $50." Page 2, lines 5 - 6: Delete "required under (g) of this section" Representative Finkelstein moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 be adopted. Representative Martin objected. The Speaker cautioned members to confine remarks to the amendment. Amendment to Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representative Kott: Under Page 2, line 5, after "department": Delete "in an amount that is not less than $25 nor more than $50" Insert "to cover reasonable costs" Representative Kott moved and asked unanimous consent that the amendment to Amendment No. 1 be adopted. Representative Brown objected. The question being: "Shall the amendment to Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 32(FIN) Second Reading Amendment to Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 4 NAYS: 35 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Kott, Moses, Mulder, Sanders 1995-04-10 House Journal Page 1216 HB 32 Nays: Austerman, Barnes, Brice, Brown, Bunde, Davies, B.Davis, G.Davis, Elton, Finkelstein, Foster, Green, Grussendorf, Hanley, Ivan, James, Kelly, Kohring, Kubina, Mackie, Martin, Masek, Navarre, Nicholia, Ogan, Parnell, Phillips, Porter, Robinson, Rokeberg, Therriault, Toohey, Vezey, Williams, Willis Absent: MacLean And so, the amendment to Amendment No. 1 was not adopted. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 32(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 18 NAYS: 21 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Brown, Davies, B.Davis, G.Davis, Elton, Finkelstein, Grussendorf, Masek, Moses, Navarre, Nicholia, Phillips, Porter, Robinson, Rokeberg, Toohey, Vezey, Williams Nays: Austerman, Barnes, Brice, Bunde, Foster, Green, Hanley, Ivan, James, Kelly, Kohring, Kott, Kubina, Mackie, Martin, Mulder, Ogan, Parnell, Sanders, Therriault, Willis Absent: MacLean And so, Amendment No. 1 was not adopted. Representative Vezey moved and asked unanimous consent that CSHB 32(FIN) be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading and placed on final passage. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CSHB 32(FIN) was read the third time. **The presence of Representative MacLean was noted. 1995-04-10 House Journal Page 1217 HB 32 The question being: "Shall CSHB 32(FIN) pass the House?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 32(FIN) Third Reading Final Passage YEAS: 22 NAYS: 17 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Brown, Bunde, G.Davis, Elton, Finkelstein, Green, Grussendorf, Hanley, Ivan, Kohring, Martin, Masek, Nicholia, Ogan, Parnell, Phillips, Porter, Robinson, Rokeberg, Toohey, Vezey, Williams Nays: Austerman, Barnes, Brice, Davies, B.Davis, Foster, James, Kelly, Kott, Kubina, Mackie, MacLean, Mulder, Navarre, Sanders, Therriault, Willis Absent: Moses And so, CSHB 32(FIN) passed the House. Representative Vezey moved the effective date clause. The question being: "Shall the effective date clause be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 32(FIN) Third Reading Effective Date YEAS: 37 NAYS: 2 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Austerman, Brice, Brown, Bunde, Davies, B.Davis, G.Davis, Elton, Finkelstein, Foster, Green, Grussendorf, Hanley, Ivan, James, Kelly, Kohring, Kott, Kubina, Mackie, Martin, Masek, Mulder, Navarre, Nicholia, Ogan, Parnell, Phillips, Porter, Robinson, Rokeberg, Sanders, Therriault, Toohey, Vezey, Williams, Willis 1995-04-10 House Journal Page 1218 HB 32 Nays: Barnes, MacLean Absent: Moses And so, the effective date clause was adopted. Representative Navarre gave notice of reconsideration of his vote on CSHB 32(FIN). The Speaker stated that, without objection, the House would move down the calendar to HB 239; and so, the House moved down the calendar to the following: