Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/23/1993 01:00 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
  SB 149  REVISION OF BANKING CODE                                             
                                                                               
  Number 528                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would now take                  
  up SB 149, which it had already heard and passed out of                      
  committee, but which had been returned to the Judiciary                      
  Committee for the consideration of one or two amendments.                    
  He called the committee members' attention to a proposed                     
  amendment (version K.1) dated April 22, 1993, contained in                   
  their bill packets.  He said that the amendment would insert                 
  a new subsection on page 24 following line 27.  He read the                  
  proposed amendment for the benefit of those on the                           
  teleconference network.  The effect of the amendment would                   
  be to prohibit state banks from purchasing, establishing, or                 
  operating a subsidiary that engaged in the business of                       
  insurance or real estate brokerage.  He said that the                        
  committee would also be considering another proposed                         
  amendment, which would "grandfather" in state banks with                     
  subsidiaries already in the insurance or real estate                         
  brokerage business.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 563                                                                   
                                                                               
  WILLIS KIRKPATRICK, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF BANKING,                     
  SECURITIES, AND CORPORATIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                   
  AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED), indicated his support for                   
  the first amendment.  He said that when SB 149 was before                    
  the House Labor and Commerce Committee, he had stated that                   
  federal law would prohibit banks from engaging in insurance                  
  activities unless states specifically allowed it.  He                        
  indicated that he had misspoken.  He noted that all of                       
  Alaska's banks except for one were owned by bank holding                     
  companies, which were subject to federal regulation.  He                     
  said that these federal regulations prohibited banks from                    
  engaging in insurance activities.                                            
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK mentioned a Delaware court case in which the                 
  federal government's prohibition against a bank subsidiary                   
  engaging in the insurance business had been upheld.  He                      
  commented that the matter was now before the U.S. Supreme                    
  Court.  He said that the one Alaska bank which was not part                  
  of a bank holding company was a "fed member bank," and thus                  
  was also prohibited by the federal government from engaging                  
  in insurance activities.                                                     
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK noted that there was a bank, owned by a bank                 
  holding company, in an Alaskan community of less than 9,000                  
  people, which, through a series of events, that bank had a                   
  presently unauthorized title insurance company.  He stated                   
  that the title insurance company was acquired at a time when                 
  it was closing down, which would have been a burden on the                   
  community.  The bank formed its own bank holding company to                  
  purchase the title insurance agency, he added.  However, the                 
  federal government regulators asserted that the bank holding                 
  company could not own a private insurance company.                           
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK stated that in the five or six years that                    
  the bank had run the title insurance company, he had not                     
  received a single complaint.  He noted that the title                        
  insurance company did business on a couple of islands where                  
  the community's other title company did not.  He expressed                   
  support for "grandfathering" this bank's title insurance                     
  subsidiary.  He urged the committee to amend the bill so as                  
  to specifically allow for this one situation.                                
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if the bank to which Mr. Kirkpatrick was                    
  referring was the only one in Alaska which had a title                       
  insurance subsidiary.                                                        
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK said that Rep. James was correct.  It was                    
  the only state-chartered financial institution which had a                   
  title insurance subsidiary.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 652                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if the title insurance company made a                       
  profit.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 655                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK responded that he could not address the                      
  profitability of the subsidiary, but said that he was able                   
  to attest that the title company was not a financial drain                   
  on the bank.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 662                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Kirkpatrick to clarify his response.                 
                                                                               
  Number 665                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK reiterated his previous comment.                             
                                                                               
  Number 669                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked what was wrong with a bank having a                      
  title insurance subsidiary.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 671                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK replied that there was concern that one                      
  industry might require a type of service from another                        
  industry which the first industry controlled.  For example,                  
  if a bank made a mortgage loan, title insurance would be                     
  required before the loan could be sold.  He said that it was                 
  possible that a bank would refuse someone a loan unless that                 
  person agreed to purchase the requisite title insurance from                 
  the bank.  He stated that regulations needed to be set up to                 
  protect customers from this type of situation.  He commented                 
  that this was not a problem with the bank in question.                       
                                                                               
  Number 694                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND stated that he had not been present when SB
  149 was last before the committee.  He asked Mr. Kirkpatrick                 
  to explain the intent of the amendment.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 703                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment before the                         
  committee would preclude insurance and real estate brokerage                 
  businesses from being owned by banks.  He said that the                      
  theory behind this prohibition was that banks would have the                 
  appearance of a conflict of interest and the ability to                      
  unfairly compete with non-banks which owned those types of                   
  businesses.                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that title insurance companies had to                  
  send copies of policies to banks issuing loans.  If the bank                 
  held a title insurance company of its own, then the banks                    
  would receive valuable information from their competitors                    
  and could take advantage of the situation, he said.                          
                                                                               
  Number 727                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND commented that, on its face, the amendment                     
  appeared to discourage competition.  But, he said, the                       
  Chairman's explanation indicated that it would actually                      
  encourage competition.  He asked Mr. Kirkpatrick to give his                 
  position on the amendment.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 731                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK indicated his support for the amendment.                     
                                                                               
  Number 739                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if Mr. Kirkpatrick could address the                     
  issue of the undue concentration of commerce.                                
                                                                               
  Number 748                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he would accept testimony from                   
  the teleconference sites first.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 751                                                                   
                                                                               
  JACK BARRY testified via teleconference from Ketchikan that                  
  he had no problem with Mr. Kirkpatrick's suggested                           
  amendment.  He indicated his support for separating the                      
  banking industry from the insurance industry.                                
                                                                               
  Number 762                                                                   
                                                                               
  ARNE IVERSEN, testifying via teleconference from Ketchikan,                  
  echoed the comments of Mr. Barry.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 765                                                                   
                                                                               
  JAMES BARRY, testifying via teleconference from Ketchikan,                   
  said that he agreed that the insurance industry and the                      
  banking industry should be kept separate.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 769                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked those testifying from Ketchikan if                     
  they had a position on Mr. Kirkpatrick's suggested                           
  amendment, which would "grandfather" in the Ketchikan bank                   
  which held a title insurance subsidiary.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 780                                                                   
                                                                               
  JACK DAVIES, testifying via teleconference from Ketchikan,                   
  said that he wholeheartedly supported both amendments.                       
                                                                               
  Number 787                                                                   
                                                                               
  JIM SARVELA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF                   
  FIRST BANK IN KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference from                   
  Ketchikan and deferred to Bill Moran, president of the bank.                 
                                                                               
  Number 789                                                                   
                                                                               
  BILL MORAN, PRESIDENT OF FIRST BANK IN KETCHIKAN, testifying                 
  via teleconference from Ketchikan, indicated his support for                 
  the amendment and said that he would answer questions about                  
  his bank's activities, as well as those of the title                         
  insurance company.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 802                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked Mr. Moran if there was only one bank in                     
  Ketchikan.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 805                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN replied that there were many banks in Ketchikan.                   
                                                                               
  Number 808                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if the bank had made any effort to sell the                 
  title insurance company.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 811                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN responded that the bank had not done so.                           
                                                                               
  Number 812                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if First Bank ever intended to sell the                     
  title insurance company.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 813                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN replied that the bank did not, at present, intend                  
  to sell the title insurance company.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 814                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked Mr. Moran if the title insurance company                    
  was a profitable business.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 818                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN commented that, while the title insurance company                  
  was basically profitable, it was not a big contributor to                    
  the bank's overall profit picture.  He noted that the                        
  company's returns were highly volatile, depending on the                     
  amount of real estate activity.  He said that the bank had                   
  been in the title insurance business for nine years, and                     
  that the company had been profitable every year.                             
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN explained how First Bank had gotten into the title                 
  insurance business in the first place.  He said that his                     
  bank had offices in many small communities in Southeast                      
  Alaska.  He noted that First Bank used to have a continuing                  
  problem with obtaining title insurance for property on                       
  Prince of Wales Island, as well as in Petersburg and                         
  Wrangell.                                                                    
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-71, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN commented that First Bank had presented the idea                   
  of acquiring the title insurance company to the Federal                      
  Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Division of                     
  Banking, Securities and Corporations as a kindred service,                   
  closely associated with the extension of credit.  He said                    
  that the title insurance company was acquired in response to                 
  a specific need and for the convenience of the bank's                        
  customers.                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN said that First Bank was sensitive to the concern                  
  that the bank might tie loan and title service together.  He                 
  said that such a practice was illegal.  He noted that the                    
  title insurance agency was kept separate from the bank.                      
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if, at the time that First Bank acquired                    
  the title insurance company, there was no other title                        
  insurance company operating in Ketchikan.                                    
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN replied that there was another title insurance                     
  agency in Ketchikan at that time, but it did not service                     
  Wrangell, Petersburg, or communities on Prince of Wales                      
  Island to the necessary extent.                                              
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if the other title insurance agency now                     
  served those areas to a greater extent.                                      
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN said that he believed that the other title                         
  insurance agency served Wrangell; and he was not sure if the                 
  agency served Petersburg.  He stated that he was almost                      
  certain that the agency wrote policies on Prince of Wales                    
  Island.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 101                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked Mr. Moran what First Bank would do if SB
  149 were not amended so as to "grandfather" in its ownership                 
  of the title insurance company.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 106                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN commented that First Bank was a state-chartered                    
  bank.  In the early 1980s, he said, the bank switched from a                 
  national charter to a state charter in order to take                         
  advantage of certain benefits relating to lending limits and                 
  the investment of reserves.  Since that time, he added,                      
  there had been many changes made to the national banking                     
  laws, and the original benefits of a state charter had                       
  disappeared to a large extent.                                               
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN indicated his understanding that one reason behind                 
  the state's current recodification was a need to bring the                   
  state banks back to parity with the national banks.                          
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES repeated her question regarding what First Bank                   
  would do if its situation was not "grandfathered" in.                        
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN replied that he was not sure what the bank would                   
  do.  He said that, regarding the entire recodification, the                  
  legislature should consider that it was neither difficult                    
  nor expensive for a bank to change its charter from state to                 
  national, or vice versa.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 175                                                                   
                                                                               
  GREG ERKINS, testifying via teleconference from Anchorage,                   
  spoke on behalf of the ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.  He                   
  said that he supported the amendment to limit banks'                         
  ownership of insurance or real estate businesses, but did                    
  not support "grandfathering" in First Bank, as he said that                  
  the bank engaged in illegal practices.  He noted that a real                 
  estate agent in Cordova used a title insurance company in                    
  Anchorage, as none existed in Cordova.  That did not present                 
  much of a problem at all, he said.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 249                                                                   
                                                                               
  GARY ROTH, PRESIDENT OF DENALI STATE BANK, testified via                     
  teleconference from Fairbanks.  He urged the committee to                    
  pass SB 149, and said that he supported both the amendment                   
  prohibiting banks from entering the insurance or real estate                 
  brokerage business and the amendment "grandfathering" in                     
  First Bank's ownership of its title insurance company.                       
                                                                               
  Number 265                                                                   
                                                                               
  GINA MCBRIDE testified via teleconference from Anchorage.                    
  She said that she supported the amendment which prohibited                   
  banks from engaging in insurance or real estate brokerage                    
  activities.  She said that the "grandfather" clause was a                    
  bad idea.  She questioned whether the amendment would affect                 
  more banks than just the one bank in Ketchikan.  She noted                   
  that safeguards that were supposed to prevent industry tie-                  
  ins had often not worked in the past.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 304                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified that there were two amendments                     
  before the committee.  Both would prohibit banks from                        
  engaging in the real estate brokerage or insurance                           
  industries.  The second one, however, also included a                        
  "grandfather" clause for First Bank.  He said that it might                  
  be best to address the second amendment first, as if it was                  
  adopted, and there would be no need to address the other                     
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 310                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN offered the second amendment.                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for the purposes of discussion.                     
                                                                               
  Number 312                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON spoke in favor of the amendment.  He noted                     
  that, as an island-dweller, he was aware of the problems of                  
  doing business in an isolated location.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 327                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked the Chairman to address the alleged                      
  illegality of First Bank's operation.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 331                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that, in his assessment, First                     
  Bank's situation was at worst illegal and at best not                        
  formally or properly authorized.  He said that he did not                    
  support the amendment for two reasons:  (1) the legislature                  
  might be "grandfathering" in an illegal activity; and (2)                    
  the amendment might affect more banks than just First Bank                   
  in Ketchikan.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 346                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked for some background on how First Bank                    
  could conduct a potentially illegal operation for nine                       
  years, given that banks were periodically reviewed.                          
                                                                               
  Number 356                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK responded that the Alaska Banking Code, as                   
  currently written, was not terribly clear.  Over the years,                  
  he said, examiners had questioned whether First Bank's                       
  investment was permissible.  He noted that there was some                    
  subjectivity involved in the determination of whether title                  
  insurance and banks were of a "kindred kind."  He added that                 
  there was no statute which said that a title insurance                       
  business was an illegal business for a bank.  Therefore, he                  
  said, there were questions about whether or not First Bank's                 
  title insurance company was illegal.  Senate Bill 149                        
  included a more precise subsidiary provision, he said.  He                   
  also commented that there was no current Attorney General's                  
  opinion on the issue.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 398                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN asked Mr. Kirkpatrick if he knew of any other                     
  banks which would be affected by the proposed "grandfather"                  
  provision.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 402                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK testified that there were no other state-                    
  chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions that                    
  had subsidiaries that were title insurance companies.                        
                                                                               
  Number 407                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES commented that, since there was another title                     
  insurance company operating in Ketchikan, she would probably                 
  not support the "grandfather" provision.  She said that she                  
  understood what it was like to do business on islands and in                 
  small communities in Alaska, and was willing to make                         
  provisions for the peculiarities of doing so.  She expressed                 
  her opinion that title insurance companies should not be in                  
  the lending business, nor should banks be in the title                       
  insurance business.  She added that since there was already                  
  a title insurance agency in Ketchikan that could be                          
  providing the same service that the bank's title insurance                   
  company did, she felt that the bank's subsidiary was a                       
  conflict of interest.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 427                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON noted that when only one title insurance                       
  company was located in an isolated community, the rates were                 
  not subject to competition and were often very high.                         
                                                                               
  Number 431                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES replied that title insurance rates in the state                   
  were uniform and set by law.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 436                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS noted that the amendment would only allow for                  
  existing situations to continue; it would not allow for                      
  other banks to get into the insurance or real estate                         
  brokerage business in the future.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 445                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed that the amendment would                              
  "grandfather" in one existing situation, but would preclude                  
  other banks from getting into the insurance or real estate                   
  brokerage business.                                                          
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND asked what current law said about banks                        
  getting into the insurance or real estate brokerage                          
  business.                                                                    
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that, if SB 149 passed, a bank                     
  could not enter the insurance business.  Under current state                 
  law, he added, a bank was not precluded from doing so.                       
  However, federal regulations prohibited such activity                        
  without specific statutory authority from the state or many                  
  "hoops" at the federal level.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 464                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND questioned why, if the Division of Banking,                    
  Securities, and Corporations supported the proposed                          
  amendment, it was not included in SB 149 in the first place.                 
                                                                               
  Number 468                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK stated that the original SB 149 would have                   
  allowed banks to enter the insurance or real estate                          
  brokerage business.  The amendment would remove that                         
  authority.  He said that his division had seen no specific                   
  harm resulting from First Bank's operation; the amendment                    
  would clear up a question regarding the legality of First                    
  Bank's practices.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 479                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND asked if SB 149's sponsor supported the                        
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 483                                                                   
                                                                               
  JOSH FINK, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SEN. TIM KELLY, PRIME SPONSOR                 
  OF SB 149, indicated that the sponsor had no position on the                 
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 493                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Kirkpatrick to address where                         
  statewide uniform title insurance rates could be found in                    
  the Alaska Statutes.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 498                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK replied that he did not regulate insurance                   
  companies and could not answer Rep. Davidson's question.                     
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if there was a state law regarding                       
  uniform title insurance rates.                                               
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK responded that he did not know the answer to                 
  Rep. Davidson's question.                                                    
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked, if title insurance rates were uniform,                  
  why the "grandfather" provision created a competition                        
  problem.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 515                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the issue was that there was                     
  perceived coercion by the bank for its customers to buy the                  
  bank's title insurance.                                                      
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS expressed her opinion that it was not right to                 
  pass legislation which pertained specifically to one entity.                 
  She asked if there were any statutes which prohibited the                    
  legislature from doing that.                                                 
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON expressed his opinion that the committee's                     
  recent action on SB 178 indicated that the legislature did                   
  pass bills which affected only one entity.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 540                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that SB 178 would apply to any                        
  lawsuit filed by anyone.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 547                                                                   
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY                     
  COMMITTEE, noted that a provision in the state constitution                  
  prohibited special interest legislation, or legislation                      
  affecting one party.  She said that there clearly had been                   
  many bills passed by the legislature over the years which                    
  only affected one entity, however.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 558                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked what the perceived problem was in                        
  "grandfathering" in the First Bank operation in Ketchikan.                   
                                                                               
  Number 561                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that if the committee's philosophy                 
  was that tie-ins between the banking industry and the                        
  insurance industry were not a good idea due to perceived and                 
  real conflicts of interest, then the harm was that (1) there                 
  was another title insurance company in Ketchikan that could                  
  provide the necessary services to the public; and (2) if                     
  another title insurance company wanted to enter and compete                  
  in the Ketchikan market, it would face the only city in                      
  Alaska where a bank was allowed to own a title company.                      
                                                                               
  Number 569                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if the other title insurance company in                  
  Ketchikan had complained about the bank-owned title                          
  insurance company.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 572                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK replied that the other title insurance                       
  company had not submitted a complaint about the bank-owned                   
  title insurance company.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 577                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN asked if it would constitute a "taking" if the                    
  legislature were to pass SB 149 without the amendment under                  
  consideration, given that First Bank might not have broken                   
  any laws.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 582                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that it was not clear whether First                   
  Bank had broken any laws by acquiring the title insurance                    
  company.  He said that he could not answer Rep. Green's                      
  question.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 586                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES noted that when title insurance companies insured                 
  titles, they listed all of the "clouds" and all of the                       
  conditions of record pertaining to a piece of property.                      
  Some title insurance companies, in competition with other                    
  title insurance companies, would insure "around" certain                     
  conditions, while other companies would not.                                 
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES expressed her opinion that there was a definite                   
  conflict of interest between title insurance companies and                   
  mortgagors.  Because First Bank's title insurance company                    
  was not the only one in Ketchikan, she said, she would not                   
  support the proposed "grandfather" provision.                                
                                                                               
  Number 612                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS commented that she would abide by the                          
  constitution's prohibition against special acts, when a                      
  general act could be made applicable.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 621                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND noted that if Rep. James' intention was to                     
  enhance competition, then her actions ran counter to that                    
  intention.                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that the committee had a motion to                 
  adopt what would now be designated as Amendment 1, which                     
  included the "grandfather" provision.  Objection had been                    
  heard.                                                                       
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to divide the question.                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that if Amendment 1 passed, then the                  
  committee was done with the issue.  If the amendment did not                 
  pass, then the committee would turn to Amendment 2, which                    
  included part of Amendment 1.                                                
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS withdrew her motion.                                           
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 1.  Reps. Nordlund,                  
  Davidson, Green and Kott voted "yea."  Reps. Phillips,                       
  James, and Porter voted "nay."  And so, Amendment 1 was                      
  adopted.                                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that, because Amendment 1 had                      
  passed, there was no need to consider Amendment 2.                           
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to move SB 149, as amended, out                  
  of committee with individual recommendations.  There being                   
  no objection, it was so ordered.                                             
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the teleconference had come                   
  to an end.  He said that the committee would now take up SB
  76.                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects