Legislature(1999 - 2000)
2000-03-31 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2000-03-31 House Journal Page 2814 HB 420 The following, which was advanced to third reading from the March30, 2000, calendar (page 2790), was read the third time: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 420(FIN) "An Act relating to tourism marketing contracts; and providing for an effective date." Representative James rose to a point of order regarding debate pertaining to the bill before the body. The Speaker cautioned the member to confine remarks to the bill. Representative Barnes rose to a point of order regarding debate being dilatory. The Speaker requested the member to wrap up remarks in a timely manner. The question being: "Shall CSHB 420(FIN) pass the House?" The roll was taken with the following result: 2000-03-31 House Journal Page 2815 HB 420 CSHB 420(FIN) Third Reading Final Passage YEAS: 31 NAYS: 4 EXCUSED: 3 ABSENT: 2 Yeas: Austerman, Barnes, Brice, Bunde, Coghill, Cowdery, Croft, Davis, Dyson, Foster, Green, Grussendorf, Halcro, Harris, Hudson, James, Kohring, Kott, Masek, Morgan, Mulder, Murkowski, Ogan, Phillips, Porter, Rokeberg, Sanders, Smalley, Therriault, Whitaker, Williams Nays: Berkowitz, Cissna, Joule, Kerttula Excused: Kapsner, Kookesh, Moses Absent: Davies, Kemplen And so, CSHB 420(FIN) passed the House. Representative Green moved and asked unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the effective date clauses. Representative Berkowitz objected. Representative Berkowitz moved and asked unanimous consent that the question be divided. The Speaker ruled that the question was divisible. There being no objection, the question of the effective date clauses was divided. Representative Green moved and asked unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the effective date clause in Section 4. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Representative Green moved and asked unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the effective date clause in Section 5. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 2000-03-31 House Journal Page 2816 HB 420 Representative Green moved and asked unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the effective date clause in Section 6. Representative Berkowitz objected. The question being: "Shall the effective date clause in Section 6 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 420(FIN) Third Reading Effective Date - Section 6 YEAS: 25 NAYS: 10 EXCUSED: 3 ABSENT: 2 Yeas: Austerman, Barnes, Brice, Bunde, Coghill, Cowdery, Davis, Dyson, Foster, Green, Halcro, Harris, Hudson, James, Kott, Masek, Morgan, Mulder, Murkowski, Phillips, Porter, Rokeberg, Therriault, Whitaker, Williams Nays: Berkowitz, Cissna, Croft, Grussendorf, Joule, Kerttula, Kohring, Ogan, Sanders, Smalley Excused: Kapsner, Kookesh, Moses Absent: Davies, Kemplen And so, lacking the necessary 27 votes, the effective date clause in Section 6 was not adopted. CSHB 420(FIN)(efd pfld) was referred to the Chief Clerk for engrossment.