Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/21/1995 02:08 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HHES - 03/21/95 HB 257 - POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS/LOANS Number 1474 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said HB 257, Postsecondary Education Programs and Loans, is a bill needed to modify the student loan program to make it more viable. DR. JOE McCORMICK, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE), asked HESS Committee members to think of HB 257 in three parts. Part one contains provisions that have been put into the bill to improve customer service. Part two are provisions that strengthen financial stability. Part three contains technical amendments that would improve overall program administration. DR. McCORMICK said improving customer service, or Section 1, raises a long-overdue issue, which is loan limits. Since 1984, the University of Alaska alone has raised its tuition 250 percent. The most recent increase occurred at the last Board of Regents meeting. The loan limits in this program have not been raised since 1981. Section 3 protects borrowers, by requiring more rigid requirements for schools to demonstrate sound financial capabilities before they are allowed to participate in the Alaska Student Loan Program (ASLP). DR. McCORMICK said Section 4 sets the borrowing limits for students at a dollar maximum. Currently the law provides a number of years maximum. This penalizes part-time students. These are students who work and go to school, and who typically would take more than five years to get a degree. However, these people could not get loans beyond the fifth year under the current laws. Therefore, the ACPE would like to simply convert the maximum the state is willing to allow a student to borrow to a dollar amount and eliminate that problem. Number 1568 DR. McCORMICK continued that Section 6 seeks to extend the terms of repayment from 10 to 15 years. In Section 12, the ACPE seeks to extend the period before a loan goes into default from 120 days to 180 days. This will allow two more months for a borrower to work with the ACPE in trying to come up with a revised repayment schedule. In this way, the borrower can avoid going into default, having his or her credit ruined and all the other ramifications of default. DR. McCORMICK said Sections 16, 17 and 21 would allow a student to take out a loan at the same time the family borrows on their behalf. The brown briefing document given to HESS Committee members contains a portfolio analysis in the back. HESS Committee members could find a chart that reflects that about 32 percent of the ACPE portfolio are students who go out of state for their education. DR. McCORMICK said many of those students go to colleges that cost in excess of $20,000 a year in tuition. Under current Alaska law, that student can get an Alaska student loan for $5,500. If he/she does so, his/her parent cannot also borrow under the family education loan program. Number 1619 DR. McCORMICK explained that these sections would correct that. The parent could then borrow $5,500, and the student could borrow $5,500. In that way, at least they would be half way toward paying the tuition of $20,000. DR. McCORMICK reiterated the second objective of HB 257: To increase the financial soundness of the ASLP. Section 5 eliminates a drain on the fund from interest-free deferment period. It has been estimated the ACPE experiences approximately $4 million in lost revenue as a result of this. Sections 9 and 13 clarify existing language in the statute that says the state will pay that interest during deferment periods subject to appropriations. Number 1649 DR. McCORMICK stated the state has never paid that subsidy, but it has always been in the law that it has the authority to do that. DR. McCORMICK continued by explaining Section 14 allows the ACPE to raise the origination fee from the current 1 percent up to a 5 percent maximum. This is arranged so if the ACPE charged a 5 percent fee on a $50 million group of loans, that would generate $2.5 million annually that the ACPE could use to offset losses due to death, disability and default. For example, last year the ACPE paid out over $6.8 million in forgiveness benefits. DR. McCORMICK said Section 17 would deny loans to incarcerated individuals because of their inability to pay. There was an amendment in the bill packet. The Department of Corrections (DOC) was present to testify as to a clarifying amendment. The ACPE supports that amendment. The amendment will avoid complicating a court case in which the DOC is currently involved. Number 1693 DR. McCORMICK said Section 19 gives delinquent loans second priority for wage garnishment behind child support. DR. McCORMICK moved onto Objective Three for HB 257: Improving overall program administration. In current law, the ACPE must send a certified, registered letter to the borrower prior to his/her going into default. This is an unnecessary expense. Section 8 eliminates the requirements for a registered letter. It simply says the borrower "shall be notified by mail" prior to going into default. DR. McCORMICK said Section 15 reduces the residency requirement from two to one years. The courts ruled the two-year residency rule unconstitutional. Therefore, the ACPE was cleaning up the language to reflect that the residency requirement is one year. DR. McCORMICK explained that Section 20 simply brings the teacher scholarship program in line with the ASLP in terms of all these changes. Section 24 clarifies an issue. If, by some reason, a student receives a loan when they are not a student, as has happened on a rare occasion, that is an illegally obtained loan, and the ACPE can demand payment in-full on that loan and not go through a 10-year repayment plan. Number 1750 DR. McCORMICK said Section 27 contains technical, cleanup language to bring the statute in compliance with other sections of the bill. DR. McCORMICK said HESS Committee members may have seen the article in the previous Sunday's edition of the Juneau Empire that referred to a Division of Legislative Audit report. Dr. McCormick wanted to speak on that report. The report says under a given scenario, the loan fund could lose from $40 million to $60 million by the year 2011. DR. McCORMICK said that report, taken in its full context, simply confirms what has been known for some time about the loan program. It is not actuarily sound. However, legislators must be mindful of the fact that when the loan program was originally created, it was not created to be actuarily sound. That must be taken into account. Number 1783 DR. McCORMICK continued that the way the program operates today does not cover all the costs associated with the program. There is an in-school period in which the ACPE does not charge interest. At the same time, interest is being paid to the bond holders. The ACPE does not charge interest during the deferment period. This bill asks that the ACPE be allowed to do that. DR. McCORMICK said the ACPE absorbs all losses due to death, default and forgiveness on the loans. There is no revenue stream to cover that. Therefore, the ACPE by and large agrees with the findings of the report, and with the recommendations the report makes. Number 1810 DR. McCORMICK asked HESS Committee members to keep something in mind when they read about the potential for a $60 million loss in that report. That is a loss after the state of Alaska cashes in an equity of $200 million to $220 million. That is after all bonds have been paid; all student loans have been retired; all losses to the loan fund from default, death, disability and forgiveness have been accounted for; and then lastly and most important, the state has provided over $900 million to 184,000 Alaskans. What the state has to show for that is a potential loss of $60 million. DR. McCORMICK said given all that has been provided over a 30 year period, this is a pretty good program. It is worth the attention of the legislature. The ultimate goal of the ACPE is to ensure that this program survives in the future and can be used by future generations of Alaskans. DR. McCORMICK noted that in order to do that, the ACPE is assuming there would never be any general fund support to the ASLP. Therefore, the ACPE must move the program toward an actuarily sound operating basis. That is what this bill does. Number 1870 CO-CHAIR BUNDE offered an analogy with the loan as a five gallon bucket with a pinhole in it. It is dripping, and there is no danger of going dry but the drip needs to be addressed. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY was very encouraged by Dr. McCormick's talk. She agreed for the need to make the program sound. She recalled that Dr. McCormick referred to $6.6 million in forgiveness for death or injury. She asked if there was any way a small insurance policy could be written on the loans. She asked if larger lending institutions have such loan guarantees or insurance policies in the event of death. Number 1897 DR. McCORMICK said an insurance premium could be purchased. The problem is that the premiums would be very high. It would not be realistic. Dr. McCormick referred HESS Committee members to page 20 in their briefing book, regarding the student loan forgiveness volume over time. The important thing about that chart is to look at the year 1991. It looks like 1991 was the peak. That is when the most is paid out. The figure is going down gradually. DR. McCORMICK estimates that the ACPE will pay out not more than $12 million to $16 million more in forgiveness. The audit report stated that there are only about $150 million left that is even eligible for forgiveness. Of that $150 million, the ACPE does not estimate more than $12 million or $16 million will actually qualify for forgiveness. Therefore, actuarily, the amount will continue to decrease. Dr. McCormick cannot predict, however, when the figure will reach zero. Number 1953 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Dr. McCormick to describe for the committee what happens if a loan under the forgiveness program goes into default. He asked if that event would accelerate the loan and do away with the forgiveness program. DR. McCORMICK said the promissory note signed by borrowers prior to 1987 states that if the loan goes into default, the forgiveness provision is lost. Forgiveness is for loans that are in a current or deferred status. If the student had applied for forgiveness at that time, it would be granted. Number 1984 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the default provision is strongly enforced. DR. McCORMICK said currently, it is being strongly enforced. Number 1991 CO-CHAIR BUNDE had previously served on the Postsecondary Education Commission. Co-Chair Bunde directed committee members to page 22, regarding the default rate, in the packet handed out by Dr. McCormick. Co-Chair Bunde said it is not coincidental that Dr. McCormick's tenure began in 1993, and the default rate decrease began in 1994. It was pointed out that the state began this program when Alaska was never going to run out of money. It was a giveaway program. CO-CHAIR BUNDE was at the University when people would take out a 3 percent student loan to buy their car, and pay for their tuition in cash because the loan program was such a good deal. Additionally, half of the loan would be forgiven. It was a wonderfully generous program, and people often did not take their obligation as borrowers seriously. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he has listened to some of the testimony in which people appeal being placed into default. Some of these people have loans that were issued as far back as 1977. Suddenly they are aware they are having problems with their credit rating. Number 2034 CO-CHAIR BUNDE assured HESS Committee members that those in default are now taking their obligations to repay the state more seriously. He said the bill and the ASLP could be tightened up even more by asking for credit checks and co-signers. However, that would really inhibit the number of people who could have access to the loan. CO-CHAIR BUNDE supports what the ACPE is doing--trying to make the program actuarily sound without unduly limiting access to the loans. Number 2050 DR. McCORMICK asked Representative Rokeberg to look on page 21 of the budget briefing document. The top chart was a student loan repayment volume. That is something that must be monitored very closely in a loan program. HESS Committee members could see the actual total dollars collected in 1994, $62.9 million, is on an upwards trend. That is a rapid trend, not a gradual trend. That is very encouraging in terms of determining the viability of the program. DR. McCORMICK directed the attention of the HESS Committee members to right below that chart, which regarded the Student Loan Collection Agency recovery chart. That showed the actual dollar amount in millions that is being collected from students who have, in fact, defaulted. He asked HESS Committee members to not be misled by the term "default." This does not mean the student is not paying or will never pay. It only means that the ACPE has not quite got to him/her yet. Those the ACPE has contacted are paying at the shown rate. DR. McCORMICK said page 20 shows the one very unique aspect of the ASLP that is different from any other student loan program in the country. That is the ability to garnish permanent fund dividends (PFDs). The chart shows, in millions of dollars, the amount collected each year since 1987 from the PFD. That is a very viable source of loan repayments from defaulted borrowers. Number 2115 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the garnishments were separate from the collection recoveries. DR. McCORMICK answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said page 6, Section 14 reminds him of the price of stamps, going up in small increments constantly. He asked what the sense was in raising costs little by little, and why not simply raise costs less frequently and by larger amounts. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the standard student loan is $5,500 for a year, and currently the origination fee is 1 percent. DR. McCORMICK said therefore, the origination fee on $5,500 is $55. TAPE 95-25, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked from what amount the loan level was being raised. DR. McCORMICK answered that the loan levels were being raised from $5,500 to $8,500 for undergraduates attending colleges and universities that offer degrees. The graduate amount is being raised from $6,500 to $9,500. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Dr. McCormick and the Chair were comfortable with that level. He said that is a major increase. DR. McCORMICK agreed. He said he would not be comfortable with that level of borrowing except for the fact that the risen loan levels have been limited only to degree-granting institutions at the college and university level. Repayment is far greater at those institutions. More importantly, those students who attend those institutions also qualify for federal aid. Therefore, the chance they would borrow the maximum amounts are somewhat diminished. DR. McCORMICK said the increases are in-line with current borrowing levels in other federal programs that students have available to them. Number 106 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Dr. McCormick if he knew what the tuition and costs, excluding room and board, are for the University of Alaska Anchorage or Fairbanks. DR. McCORMICK said the school catalogs estimate around $9,500 for 9 months for a single student living off-campus. However, he could be off by about $1,000 a year. He said that includes room and board. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if that included the new tuition increase. DR. McCORMICK said the resident undergraduate budget, including tuition fees, room and board, books and supplies, and transportation for a student living on-campus is $9,100 for 9 months. For a student living off-campus, the amount is $14,000. That is a considerable difference. Those figures are for the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). The figures for the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) is $8,300 for on-campus, and $9,900 for off-campus. DR. McCORMICK said the figures for the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) are $13,000 for 9 months following spring for a full-time student living away from home. Number 272 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he shares the concerns of Representative Rokeberg. Students can, conceivably, graduate from college with a $40,000 debt. Graduating from college now with that large a debt by going to school in the Lower 48 is the price of doing business. However, Co-Chair Bunde hopes there is a very clear message being sent to students that this is a business transaction, not a giveaway. Students should only borrow what they absolutely need. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Dr. McCormick if the ASLP is able to provide loans for all applicants during the fiscal year. DR. McCORMICK answered by saying historically, the program has been able to provide all qualified applicants with a loan. The program processed and funded all eligible applications. The ACPE anticipates another sizeable jump, if this bill passes, in the loan volume for next year. That would go into the calculations of the ACPE to determine how much additional bond money should be issued in 1995. DR. McCORMICK said those numbers are being worked on now. The underwriter and financial advisor of the ACPE are working with the ACPE, making assumptions on the volume of the loans if the bill passes and if it does not pass. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why there would be a jump. Number 400 DR. McCORMICK answered that if the loan amount is increased, that alone will increase the loan volume somewhat. In addition, the University of Alaska system has grown every year for the last five years. It has seen an increase in student population. If enrollment increases are assumed, along with increases in loan amounts that students can borrow, an increase in the actual lended dollars can be anticipated. DR. McCORMICK said the part the ACPE cannot calculate with any degree of certainty is how much that will be. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said last year, in the continuing attempt to make the loan program more actuarily sound, a bill was passed that pegged the interest rate to the cost of borrowing money. This is because in the past the ACPE was charging students 8 percent interest. If one factors in 5 years of interest-free money, the state was borrowing money at 6 percent and charging only 4 or 5 percent. Therefore, some progress is being made. Number 491 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern about the cumulative totals a person can borrow. A person can borrow up to $79,000 in graduate school. That is a lot of money. He asked Dr. McCormick to explain again about the "family" provisions of the bill. DR. McCORMICK replied under current law, there are two types of loans in the ASLP. This is in Section 16 of the bill. An undergraduate can borrow $5,500. There is also a provision in the law that the parent of that child can borrow $5,500 under the ASLP rules and regulations. However, that parent cannot borrow for their child at the same time a child borrows for an ASLP. DR. McCORMICK said therefore, the current law reads that one or the other has to take out the loan. HB 257 is advocating being more responsive to parents, students and the higher cost of tuition. Where the total cost of education will justify it, the child and parent can both borrow $5,500 for those families that have children at a high-cost school. That is what Section 16 does, is allow that to happen. Number 649 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the reason there are two different loans is because a parent is a more secured borrower, they are able to borrow money at a lower interest rate. The student has a higher interest rate. Some parents choose to put the loan in their name rather than have the student apply for the loan. Other young people are not so closely connected with their family, and have to do it on their own. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wanted to know what happens if a person has two children in college. He asked how much the parent could then borrow. DR. McCORMICK said the limit is the cost of attendance. If the student is going to UAF, and is single and living on-campus, and the cost of attendance certified by the institution is $9,000, if the student borrows $5,500 under the ASLP, this provision would only allow the parent to borrow $3,500 because the loan could not exceed the total cost of attendance. Number 709 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the ASLP was going to loan the entire cost of an education. DR. McCORMICK said the provision would allow for that. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he found that very hard to take. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said this is not a new concept. When one could attend UAA for $5,500, people were borrowing $5,500. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wished someone had loaned him all his money to go to school. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it used to be that working through the summer could pay tuition. It is beyond that point now. Number 763 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it would be conceivable under this Section to borrow up to $17,000. Dr. McCormick answered yes. Representative Rokeberg also asked about the final gross amount. DR. McCORMICK said there is a gross amount a person cannot exceed in total as an undergraduate. That is around $42,000. The gross amount for graduate students is around $47,000. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that was a cap, and Dr. McCormick answered yes. He said there is no way to get around that cap. Representative Rokeberg said there are two loans, the family loan and the student loan. He asked how the cap works in that case. He said it is conceivable that a student could rack up a $160,000 loan. DR. McCORMICK said he would have to get back to Representative Rokeberg on that topic. He knew the cap applied to the student, but he did not know how it applied to the borrowing parent. Number 850 GILLIAN HAYES, Executive Assistant to Dr. McCormick, ACPE, asked if Representative Rokeberg was asking if the family education loan also has a dollar cap. However, the loan is taken out by another person. It is taken out by the parent or spouse. That is another issue in which the family education loan limit would go up to $37,500. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the bottom line was if a student and a family member wanted to borrow the maximum, they could borrow an excess of $70,000. That would include the student cap plus the family cap. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the student can borrow more if they go to graduate school. DR. McCORMICK said again that he would like to get back to Representative Rokeberg on those caps. He is not sure how the cap numbers apply to the payment of the education loan. He does not know if they are treated separately or if they are treated inclusively. DR. McCORMICK asked Representative Rokeberg to consider something when looking at the caps and what people borrow. Students are borrowing money on their future earnings to pay the total costs of education. Based on the way the program will be administered, they are not going to be subsidized at all. They will pay the total cost of loan interest. DR. McCORMICK shares the concerns of Representative Rokeberg in some ways. In other ways, the loans are more of a family decision. They need to decide how much they need to borrow for the opportunity to attend the institution they have chosen. This bill provides families with more flexibility to make those kinds of decisions. Number 964 CO-CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that currently the state invests $160,000 a year in each of its medical students. That is after a four-year graduate degree. The sums being spoken of for graduate study are calculated. It is a judgement that must be made--will he or she make enough money to make it worthwhile. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the state must make that calculated judgement also. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he does not have any discomfort at all, because the students are responsible for the money. The recovery rate is going very well. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the parent's loan is backed by any type of collateral. DR. McCORMICK said it is not a collateralized loan. However, it is a loan in which repayment begins within 60 days of the date that the loan originated. That is a big difference from the student loan. The student loan repayment will not begin until six months after they have left school. The borrowing parents, however, must start making payments within 60 days of the date they receive the funds. Number 1055 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY appreciated the bill, and said she is totally comfortable with it because the state cannot give enough to educate its children. She stressed to Representative Rokeberg that the money is a loan. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the delinquency rate. DR. McCORMICK said it is 19 percent. The rate is decreasing, however, the current rate is still unacceptable. The rate must come down. Number 1093 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said two amendments had been offered. The first page was called amendment one. He asked Dr. McCormick if that was different from the second page that concerns people in jail. Dr. McCormick answered yes. Co-Chair Bunde said he would like to deal with amendment one first. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that she has a close-out at 4:00 p.m. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said if HESS Committee members were speedy, they could finish the meeting by 4:00 p.m. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved the amendment. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. McCormick to speak to the amendment. DR. McCORMICK said the amendment simply changes the words "guarantee fee" to the correct term of "origination fee." These loans are not guaranteed by anyone. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for questions about and objections to the amendment. Hearing none, amendment one was adopted. Number 1176 CO-CHAIR BUNDE brought up amendment two, and Co-Chair Toohey moved the amendment. Co-Chair Bunde objected for purposes of discussion. JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant, Department of Corrections (DOC), said the amendment to Section 17 is important to the DOC because the state of Alaska is party to an agreement called the Cleary Fair Settlement Agreement. In part, that agreement requires the state, through the DOC, to provide a variety of rehabilitative programs to inmates. Education is one of these rehabilitative programs. The good news is that almost none of the inmates have received a loan from ACPE. MR. SHRINER said these loans are not unheard of, but they are extremely rare. This language would not require postsecondary education to make any loans to inmates. It only means that legally and constitutionally inmates have access to the same programs of the state that other individuals have who are not incarcerated. The amendment also provides a level of insurance which is necessary in the sense that if the inmates did not have technical access to the loan program, an inmate could, at some future date, go back into superior court and allege that the state acted in bad faith with respect to the Cleary Fair Settlement Agreement in taking away a right that was available to them at the time the act was entered into. MR. SHRINER summarized by saying inmates get almost nothing out of the amendment. The DOC is concerned that it could end up spending a lot of money in legal fees if inmates do not have at least technical access to the loans. Number 1290 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she cannot understand the last part of the amendment. She also said that the entire bill assumes that people are borrowing on their future earnings. She asked how someone incarcerated for 30 years will pay off the loan. MR. SHRINER said the language of the amendment would make it such that an inmate would not be eligible for a loan unless they were to be released within six months of the time the educational program was completed. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if that applies to the six-month grace period for all borrowers. Dr. McCormick said the ACPE supports the amendment. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the ACPE was amenable to a small amendment. He said no one is going to get a job the day they get out of jail. He asked if the amendment could be changed to say the inmate's release date is no more than two months after the program is completed. That gives the inmates four months to find a job after they are out. Number 1353 DR. McCORMICK said the six months referred to in amendment two is the point in time the inmate is eligible to receive a loan. An inmate cannot receive a loan until he or she is within six months of a release date. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he had misunderstood the amendment entirely. He read, "a person's scheduled release date is more than six months after the scheduled completion date of the career education or degree program for which the loan was requested." MR. SHRINER said Co-Chair Bunde was correct, and Dr. McCormick noted he was mistaken. Mr. Shriner understood the amendment as referring to a person who has four years to serve, and who wants to get into a two-year degree program while in prison. If he/she wants to have the educational program completed by the time he/she gets out of prison, the person can start borrowing money four years and six months ahead of his/her release date. If a person has five years left to serve in a sentence, and it takes him/her four years to complete the educational program participating half-time, he/she can start borrowing money four-and-one-half years short to pay the course fees. That money can be borrowed up until the educational program is completed, which is six months prior to his/her release date. MR. SHRINER said this addresses the concern of Co-Chair Bunde. He said the terms should be two months of the release date so the person has four months on the outside to get a job. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said under the current amendment, the person would have to begin making payments the day he or she is released from jail. That puts the person into default immediately and undermines the program. MR. SHRINER did not see a problem with the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reminded HESS Committee members that she had to leave the meeting soon. Number 1437 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the amount of money an inmate is borrowing would be less than the average borrower. The inmate's room and board is paid. CO-CHAIR BUNDE proposed an amendment to amendment two that replaced the words "six months" with "two months." There was no objection to the amendment to the amendment. The new intent of amendment two is to provide the ex-inmate with about four months to find a job so repayment can begin. Co-Chair Bunde removed his objection to amendment two, and asked if there were further objections. Number 1500 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected to the amendment. He said he would vote against this amendment because he is a member of the House Budget Subcommittee on Corrections and he has a problem with the Cleary Settlement and the policy being established. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he shares the concerns, however, the fear of future litigation will keep him from voting against the amendment. A roll call vote was taken. Voting "yes" on the amendment was Representatives Davis, Toohey, and Robinson. Voting "no" were Representatives Rokeberg and Bunde. The amendment passed. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY moved HB 257 as amended be passed from the HESS Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He said he is concerned about the amount of money that can be borrowed, and the family loans. He is concerned about how those amounts can affect the actuary health of the ASLP. CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted his concern, and said people are not required to take the loans. Some people make bad judgments, however. A roll call vote was taken. Voting "no" was Representative Rokeberg. Voting "yes" were Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Robinson, and Davis. HB 257 passed from the HESS Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|