Legislature(2013 - 2014)
2014-04-17 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2014-04-17 House Journal Page 2559 HB 385 The following, which was advanced to third reading from the April 16, 2014, calendar (page 2488), was read the third time: 2014-04-17 House Journal Page 2560 HOUSE BILL NO. 385 "An Act relating to additional state contributions to the teachers' defined benefit retirement plan and the public employees' defined benefit retirement plan; and providing for an effective date." Representative Seaton moved and asked unanimous consent that HB 385 be returned to second reading for the specific purpose of considering Amendment No. 1. There being no objection, it was so ordered. The Speaker stated that, without objection, HB 385 would be returned to second reading for all amendments. Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representative Seaton: Page 1, line 10: Delete "up to" Insert "of" Page 2, line 12: Delete "up to" Insert "of" Representative Seaton moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 be adopted. Representative Munoz objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: HB 385 Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 16 NAYS: 24 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Chenault, Drummond, Isaacson, Josephson, Kawasaki, Kito III, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Nageak, Olson, Reinbold, Seaton, Tarr, Tuck, P.Wilson, T.Wilson 2014-04-17 House Journal Page 2561 Nays: Austerman, Costello, Edgmon, Feige, Foster, Gara, Gattis, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Hawker, Herron, Higgins, Holmes, Hughes, Johnson, Keller, Lynn, Millett, Munoz, Neuman, Pruitt, Saddler, Stoltze, Thompson And so, Amendment No. 1 was not adopted. Amendment No. 2 was offered by Representatives Millett, Thompson, Keller, and Reinbold: Page 1, line 10: Delete "up to $343,000,000" Page 2, line 12: Delete "up to $157,000,000" Representative Millett moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 2 be adopted. Representative Isaacson objected. Representative Millett moved and asked unanimous consent to withdraw Amendment No. 2. There being no objection, it was so ordered. HB 385 was automatically in third reading. Representative T. Wilson placed a call of the House. The Speaker stated the call was satisfied. The question being: "Shall HB 385 pass the House?" The roll was taken with the following result: HB 385 Third Reading Final Passage YEAS: 38 NAYS: 2 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 2014-04-17 House Journal Page 2562 Yeas: Austerman, Chenault, Costello, Drummond, Edgmon, Feige, Foster, Gara, Gattis, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Hawker, Herron, Holmes, Hughes, Isaacson, Johnson, Josephson, Kawasaki, Keller, Kito III, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Lynn, Millett, Munoz, Nageak, Neuman, Olson, Pruitt, Reinbold, Saddler, Stoltze, Tarr, Thompson, Tuck, P.Wilson, T.Wilson Nays: Higgins, Seaton And so, HB 385 passed the House. Representative Pruitt 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. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Representative Johnson gave notice of reconsideration of the vote on HB 385. HB 385 Representative Johnson moved and asked unanimous consent that reconsideration of HB 385 be taken up on the same day. There being no objection, it was so ordered. HB 385 was before the House in third reading. The question to be reconsidered: "Shall HB 385 pass the House?" The roll was taken with the following result: HB 385 Third Reading Final Passage Reconsideration YEAS: 38 NAYS: 2 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Austerman, Chenault, Costello, Drummond, Edgmon, Feige, Foster, Gara, Gattis, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Hawker, Herron, Holmes, Hughes, Isaacson, Johnson, Josephson, Kawasaki, Keller, Kito III, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Lynn, Millett, Munoz, Nageak, Neuman, Olson, Pruitt, Reinbold, Saddler, Stoltze, Tarr, Thompson, Tuck, P.Wilson, T.Wilson 2014-04-17 House Journal Page 2563 Nays: Higgins, Seaton And so, HB 385 passed the House on reconsideration. Representative Pruitt 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. There being no objection, it was so ordered. HB 385 was referred to the Chief Clerk for engrossment.