Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/27/1995 08:42 AM STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 HB 210 - PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING/TESTING                             
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, Sponsor of HB 210, said that HB 210 is a            
 comprehensive bill on which there has been some considerable                  
 research.  He stated this bill has seen a considerable amount of              
 effort and attention from the legislature and the Administration.             
 He commented they were trying to create an opportunity to privatize           
 a government service.  Approximately 27 other states provide for              
 some form of contracting out of motor vehicle services.  This bill            
 is modeled after the statutes and procedures of several of these              
 states.  He added this bill does not mandate anything, but states             
 the department may.  Because there is no mandate, the Division of             
 Motor Vehicles (DMV) has given this bill a zero fiscal note.  It              
 does lay out a program where the state can contract with parties              
 to:  1) Register vehicles and issue vehicle titles; 2) issue                  
 drivers licenses; 3) issue commercial drivers licenses; or 4) any             
 combination of the above.  The intent of the sponsor is that the              
 cost of this program would be born by the savings in administrative           
 cost and may even see a positive cash flow.  The contractors will             
 not receive any subsidy from the state.  They will not receive any            
 portion of the fees collected for the state, but do have the right            
 to charge a service fee.  He stated this was not that different               
 than the current process.  When an individual purchases a new                 
 automobile, they do not give them the manufacturers statement of              
 origin.  Rather, the individual is charged $35 to go to the DMV and           
 get a registration and title.  He did not expect the service fee              
 would be as high as $35, but stated they did not put a cap on how             
 much could be charged.  He added the state was not providing any              
 equipment or staff for the contractor to use.  He did not expect              
 this program to take off immediately, but did suspect there would             
 be a couple of contract stations by the end of the year, that at a            
 minimum would provide vehicle registration and titling service.  He           
 mentioned there was already at least one professional driving                 
 school in Alaska.  He felt it would be a small step for them to               
 advance to issuing drivers licenses.  Currently, the DMV does not             
 know what it will take to qualify contractors for these functions,            
 as they do not compartmentalize the functions of their personnel.             
 He reiterated they were not requiring the contractor to be                    
 qualified to accomplish all of the DMVs function, as they might               
 only contract to do a part of the process.  He thought there were             
 only two areas of concern for the DMV: 1) They put the wording of             
 the contract into statute.  This was because they had modelled this           
 legislation on the model of other states, where this is working and           
 there is a track record.  Also, he felt this was a new enough idea,           
 that he wanted the Administration to have to work with the                    
 legislature and not just address these contracts by regulation.  He           
 wanted to encourage the DMV to come back to the legislature in a              
 year or two, and see where there were problems that needed to be              
 addressed and improved upon.  He clarified that this bill did allow           
 the department to write regulations; and 2) the DMV was used to               
 adjudicating disputes through an administrative hearing process.              
 He has tried to approach this bill as a contract between two                  
 parties, as a commercial relationship.  Thus, they have set up that           
 disputes will be handled through Alaskas Uniform Arbitration                  
 Statute, Title 09.42.  He advocated this process, as this was a               
 commercial relationship.  The standard in the world of commerce was           
 to have contracts to provide for arbitration.  Additionally,                  
 arbitration is considered to be a faster process than litigation.             
 There are very few appeals, as the courts recognized the rulings of           
 arbitration tribunals and do not like to overturn these decisions.            
 Under the administrative hearing process, one side frequently feels           
 that they did not receive a fair hearing and appeal to the courts.            
 The state has to pay the cost of the trial.  In arbitration, both             
 parties split the cost equally at the beginning.  After the                   
 process, the arbitrator awards all costs to the prevailing party.             
 Thus, if the state is the prevailing party, they will not have to             
 pay anything to settle a dispute.  He felt this was an incentive to           
 find solutions.  He argued that arbitration encourages every other            
 form of dispute resolution, including mediation.  He advocated that           
 they were taking a new approach to how the state does business, and           
 perhaps this approach should offer a new way of how the state                 
 settles disputes.  He commented this was a complex bill, and stated           
 they started out looking at how the Federal Aviation Administration           
 handles licensing of pilots and aircraft, which is completely                 
 accomplished in the private sector.  This research showed there               
 were at least 27 states that contract out these services, of which            
 about 19 contract with the private sector.  He offered to answer              
 any questions.                                                                
 CHAIR JAMES noticed that Juanita Hensley, representing the DMV, was           
 present and asked if the committee wanted to hear her testimony               
 before asking questions of both her and the sponsor.                          
 Number 263                                                                    
 JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief of Driver Services, Division of Motor                  
 Vehicles, stated she had just arrived and apologized for missing              
 the comments of the bill sponsor.  She said the department had                
 worked with the sponsor to develop a draft of the legislation that            
 they thought would accommodate their needs.  She reiterated one               
 area of concern was with the contracts being included in the                  
 statute. She felt that should there be a change in the future, this           
 would require the department to come to the legislature annually to           
 upgrade the contracts.  She added the Department of Law thought the           
 exact wording of the contract did not need to be in statute, but              
 just the intent of the legislature.  The other area of concern to             
 the department was the requirement of arbitration.  They feared               
 that if there was a dispute between the contractor and the                    
 department, then they would have to go to arbitration.  They felt             
 this should be accomplished by administrative hearing, emphasizing            
 this hearing would not be under the guidelines of the                         
 Administrative Procedures Act.  Overall, the department felt they             
 could work with this bill, mentioning they currently had 13                   
 commissioned agents working with them.  These agents were small               
 governmental entities.  This was not a new process for the DMV, but           
 this bill does give them guidelines of how to accomplish this task.           
 She offered to answer any questions.                                          
 Number 325                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked if the department was already             
 privatizing aspects of its service, why it was necessary to have              
 this legislation.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that currently the state was making no            
 effort to privatize any of its functions.  He recognized that there           
 was some effort towards contracting with local government and other           
 governmental entities.  He said they were directing this effort,              
 while allowing for considerable flexibility by saying may and not             
 shall.  These services are not currently in the private sector                
 and they can be.  He said that was the difference.                            
 CHAIR JAMES commented if there was anything that could be done to             
 stop the long lines at the DMV, then it should be considered.  She            
 thought this may accomplish that goal.                                        
 Number 349                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN verified that Ms. Hensley had said that              
 the DMV already had the authority to do this without legislation.             
 He asked her if she thought this would encourage contracting with             
 the private sector or mean a continuation of the existing system.             
 MS. HENSLEY replied this bill would allow the agent to charge a               
 fee.  She thought this may or may not prevent the long lines at the           
 DMV.  Under their existing contracts, they pay the contract agents            
 15 percent of the intake of profits to process the work for the               
 DMV.  This bill would require a renegotiation of these contracts,             
 because this bill requires them to collect a fee and then remit the           
 full fees back to the state.  She suspected that if there was a DMV           
 office in the town an individual was residing in and they could go            
 there and not pay the additional fee, then they would choose to do            
 so.  Should they favor the shorter lines at the contract station,             
 then they could choose that option.  She cited examples of IM                 
 (Inspection/Maintenance) stations in the Anchorage area, that are             
 renewing registrations.  She stated they had paid for the equipment           
 and training necessary to set up.  This is what they would hope to            
 see happen should this bill become law:  If they are going to offer           
 the service, that it not place any more burden on the state.  The             
 department does feel that if there are more contractors, they may             
 need to ask the legislature for additional funding to pay for the             
 oversight of them.  They want to try to continue to provide the               
 public with the service it is used to receiving, and so would not             
 foresee reducing the DMV employees under this bill.                           
 Number 426                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there could not be a flexibility in             
 the fee structure to allow the contract agent to charge their fee             
 in addition to those funds that would normally go to the state;               
 thus making this effectively revenue neutral to the state.  He                
 recognized Ms. Hensleys concern about the need for additional                 
 oversight of the contract agents, but asked if any additional costs           
 as a result of this would not be made up by a reduction in the                
 administrative processing work of the DMV.                                    
 MS. HENSLEY thought this could be possible, but said the goal of              
 the department was to reduce those long lines and still provide the           
 same level of service.  To do this, they would still need to keep             
 the same number of employees.                                                 
 Number 452                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated one of the problems that arose in                 
 discussing this bill with the DMV was the rather complex system of            
 checking information when processing vehicle registration, titles,            
 and drivers licenses.  It may be that this process is the                     
 bottleneck that may be preventing the department from providing               
 better service.  He thought it may be necessary to revisit this               
 legislation in the future to find that balance between control                
 versus services.  The problem in working with this legislation has            
 been to allow for this control to remain in place, while allowing             
 for an expansion of service.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked if this bill would put another layer           
 between the citizens and their elected officials.  He asked how the           
 legislature could address problems that may arise with the contract           
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that this would only happen if the               
 citizen voluntarily chose this option.  He reminded the committee             
 that this was the way that pilot licenses were handled, as well as            
 fishing and hunting licenses.  Thus, he did not think this idea was           
 unusual.  He stated he felt it was likely that an individual would            
 have to pay a premium to go to a private vendor and avoid the long            
 lines at the local DMV office.                                                
 CHAIR JAMES commented this might open options for service that                
 would be available on a schedule other than 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.  She             
 pointed out that the DMV office in Fairbanks was closed during the            
 noon hour.  She said if you were in line at this time, you faced              
 the risk of having to come back, claiming she had personally had              
 this happen in the past.                                                      
 Number 515                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY said she was surprised to hear this, because the only             
 offices that are closed between 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. are the one-               
 person offices.  She also pointed out that they did have offices in           
 the Anchorage area that were open Tuesday through Saturday to try             
 to accommodate the needs of the public.  She reiterated the DMV was           
 trying hard to find ways to be more efficient and responsive.                 
 CHAIR JAMES stated that what was distressing to her and the public            
 was that the DMV is the department that brings in more money than             
 it spends, yet the service seems to be less than what it should be            
 for the money received.                                                       
 MS. HENSLEY replied that the budget of the DMV is only one-fourth             
 of that which it earns in income.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he felt that the initial demand for               
 these contract agents would come from commercial users, who look              
 not only at the cost of fees, but also the cost of payroll for the            
 individual standing in line at the DMV.  This could be a way for              
 them to improve the efficiency of their own internal organization             
 by tying in with a contract agent of the DMV.                                 
 Number 539                                                                    
 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,                  
 Department of Law, was concerned that HB 210 in the new proposed              
 statute, 28.12.120, specifies the required contract language to be            
 used by the DMV.  She said as a general rule, when you specify the            
 language of a contract in a statute, then you cannot change the               
 contract without amending the statute.  Thus, the preferred                   
 practice is to establish the terms of the contract in statute, but            
 not the exact language.  This provides flexibility should something           
 be overlooked or another statute changes that has an impact on this           
 one.  She thought this would seriously tie the hands of the                   
 Administration, who would be required to come back to the                     
 legislature to effect any changes in the contracts.  Thus, her                
 recommendation was that this statute not specify the language of              
 the contracts, but the terms the legislature feels are necessary to           
 have included in these contracts.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered that the contracts that they have put           
 together, state that they will comply with state and federal law              
 and regulations.  He stated they wanted the Administration to have            
 a reason to come back to the legislature, should there be a problem           
 that needs to be addressed.  He was concerned that should they turn           
 all authority over to the Administration, then they will be in the            
 same problems expressed about regulations, which are that neither             
 the legislature or the Administration is accountable.  By putting             
 the contracts in statute, they hope to encourage the                          
 Administration, legislature, and public to get together in the                
 event a problem arises.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if there would not have to be                   
 additional regulations drafted even with this tight contract.                 
 Number 579                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that he felt this statute was very               
 complete.  He stated the DMV had testified in the Transportation              
 Committee that they did not see that regulations would be required,           
 as the bill is very complete.  They had asked for the authority to            
 write regulations, should something come up in the future.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed reservation about putting the                   
 regulations in statute.  He thought that maybe it would be wise to            
 put some type of sunset on this provision of the bill.  He also               
 asked if this would not load up the legislature with contract                 
 negotiations.  His experience had been that contracts were                    
 something that were negotiated on a case-by-case basis.                       
 Number 598                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained this was not a mandate to do                   
 anything, but just allows the department to consider this as an               
 option.  Should there be enough public demand, then the legislature           
 can tighten up the language to make it more mandatory.  He thought            
 that Representative Ogans concerns were addressed in this bill.               
 He also stated that if the legislature wanted to be more responsive           
 and accountable, then it had to accept more responsibility for                
 their work product.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed there was a dilemma with the amount of            
 regulations currently on the books, but also found the DMV to be a            
 very responsive agency.  He stated his concern was that if                    
 something was found to need addressing in July, then it could not             
 be addressed by the legislature until the next session.  He thought           
 that regulations were theoretically based on statute and if given             
 an outline to follow by the legislature, they should adhere to                
 those guidelines.  If they dont, the legislature could then                   
 address the concerns they have without having to address these                
 contracts on a yearly basis.  He thought the legislatures plate               
 was full already.                                                             
 CHAIR JAMES commented the solution to this problem was to have                
 oversight of regulations, which she thought could very simply be              
 accomplished.  She said this was a whole other subject.                       
 Number 624                                                                    
 MS. KNUTH answered the problem with a contract that states must               
 read as follows, is if there is a problem discovered when the                 
 legislature was not in session, she did not know how it could be              
 addressed until the legislature convenes.  She said the language of           
 the contracts look good, but she could not say if they were                   
 comprehensive.  She said until you start using these contracts, you           
 cannot know what problems may arise.                                          
 CHAIR JAMES stated her inclination was to ask what damage would be            
 done.  Wouldnt it only be that you would be delayed from entering             
 into a contract until the following legislative session.  Those               
 people who had already entered into a contract would be bound by              
 the terms of those contracts.  Should a change be necessary, then             
 the only damage would be that the DMV could not enter into any new            
 contracts until the next legislative session.                                 
 Number 645                                                                    
 MS. KNUTH stated their concern was more that if there was a                   
 provision that was not addressed, that it could lead to litigation.           
 Should there need to be something addressed, she thought one of the           
 two parties would possibly face an economic loss.  She did not                
 think it would be a case of not entering into a contract, but                 
 rather making do with the existing provisions and then making up              
 for any deficiencies in litigation.                                           
 MS. HENSLEY said the department would echo the concerns of the                
 Department of Law.  Should they enter into a contract that changes,           
 then under this law they would have to go back to terminate that              
 contract.  Once the contracts were terminated, then the contractor            
 would have the right to go to arbitration to get the issue                    
 resolved.  She thought this would be costly and time-consuming to             
 the department.                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES stated her experience with contracts suggested that               
 when they realize there is something missing in the agreement, they           
 do an addendum, but do not throw out the whole contract.  Thus, she           
 fails to see the scenario they suggest.  She thought that only the            
 amendment would be on hold, and this could happen currently,                  
 without the language of this bill.                                            
 MS. KNUTH said this was the problem with the specific language                
 being in statute.  This doesnt allow the Administration the                   
 flexibility to negotiate should any changes be necessary.                     
 CHAIR JAMES stated she understood those concerns, but asked if they           
 wanted to have the freedom to have a contract with one agent that             
 was different from the one they have with another.  She thought               
 this could create a problem, and that was what having the contract            
 in statute prevented.                                                         
 MS. KNUTH did not foresee having different contracts with different           
 agents, but was thinking in terms of refinement that may be needed            
 with all of their contracts.                                                  
 CHAIR JAMES stated that it sounded as if they were saying that they           
 had not really looked at this language well enough to know what was           
 necessary to be in the language of the statute.                               
 MS. KNUTH said she had looked at this language, but felt that until           
 the situation was implemented, you may not know of all of the                 
 changes that may be needed.  She said there could be a change in              
 federal or state law that could mean a change would be necessary in           
 the contracts.  She felt the use of the legislature to micro-manage           
 something as technical as this was inappropriate, when what was               
 needed was the policy considerations and guidelines.                          
 Number 690                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if there was a way this language                
 could be refined to allow for addendums to contracts.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered that the contracts were worded that             
 a contract agent must follow state and federal law.  Should the law           
 change, the contracts change to reflect this change of law.  He               
 stated they were not locked into a prior law.  The basic nature of            
 a contract, he said, was that two people could agree to anything.             
 With this language, they were trying to set up the grounds for                
 termination of the contract by the state and the commitments of the           
 contractor to comply with the law.                                            
 TAPE 95-54, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agrees with the idea to legislatively fix                
 something that has runamuck, he still agrees with the idea of                 
 having departmental regulations that are under the guidelines of              
 the legislature.  He was concerned that should the legislature                
 continue to pass legislation, where the legislature dictates all              
 things and by-passes the regulatory process, then this was                    
 overkill.  He felt this was a case where the legislature was trying           
 to micro-manage things that is should not be.  He stated the                  
 legislature should just be giving guidelines for these contracts.             
 If these contracts do not comply with these guidelines, then the              
 legislature should address this with the agencies to get them                 
 Number 070                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated there were statutes that set forth the             
 legal form, stating the documents should read substantially as                
 follows or substantially in a similar form.  He thought maybe it              
 would be appropriate to have a conceptual amendment that would                
 change the verbiage on page 7, line 12, to read The contract                  
 required under AS 28.12.110(b) for third party agents must read               
 substantially as follows.  Combining this with some legislative               
 oversight as necessary, he felt would solve the problem.  He                  
 thought that maybe these contracts could be reviewed by the sponsor           
 and be a win-win situation for everyone.                                      
 Number 102                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said there were three contracts, depending on            
 the type of service the agent wants to engage in.  They are all               
 worded very similar, stating that the third party agent agrees to             
 comply with all applicable statutes and administrative regulations            
 of the state of Alaska and all applicable federal laws, including             
 regulations of the Federal Highway Administration, and with all               
 applicable municipal ordinances.  Thus, should the state wish to              
 arbitrarily change a contract condition, then they have the ability           
 to write a regulation.  The contractor has no choice but to follow            
 that regulation.  He thought they had given the department a                  
 tremendous amount of responsibility.  He reiterated the contract              
 changes anytime the law changes.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he did not know of any other contracts           
 that were in statute.  He asked why it was appropriate to put this            
 contract in statute, even with the verbiage of these terms, as                
 opposed to the suggested verbiage of what terms should be in the              
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered the reason was that the state had               
 such a poor record of privatization.  He felt if they were going to           
 push the Administration towards privatization, then it would be               
 necessary to use a few more tools than had been used in the past.             
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER did not disagree, but felt it was ironic that           
 this involved the one agency that had taken some steps to privatize           
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that this was correct and he was not             
 sure how they happened to focus on this particular agency.  He                
 stated they had tried to look toward other areas that had been                
 successful in privatization in government and the one area that               
 stood out was the Federal Aviation Administration.  Much of that              
 service has successfully been privatized and is so commonplace that           
 people do not even think about it.                                            
 Number 166                                                                    
 CHAIR JAMES commented this bill is really plowing new ground and              
 not really wanting to be facetious, but the concerns she is hearing           
 from the Department of Law is the type she would expect to hear               
 from attorneys.  She stated she had just finished reading The                 
 Death of Common Sense and suggested that anyone who had not read              
 this, do so.  This book tells how precise government has tried to             
 be over the past 30-40 years.  Being so precise creates loopholes.            
 She stated as an example, the 36,000 pages of the regulations of              
 the Internal Revenue Service.  The more it is attempting to try to            
 cover every detail of a situation, the more the likelihood is that            
 someone will discover a loophole.  It was her experience that the             
 KISS (Keep it simple stupid) method works better.  She stated this            
 dispute will always take place with the legal profession, as that             
 is their job.  She thought there needed to be some common ground,             
 between being too cautious and careless.  She thought that, should            
 this common ground be found, there would be less litigation as a              
 result.  She argued that the language in this bill finds that                 
 common ground, and the only thing that will happen should these               
 contracts be insufficient, is that the Administration will be                 
 before the legislature next year without having finished the                  
 contractual agreements.  This would be the stop-gap.  Should this             
 happen, that they have to come before the legislature the following           
 year, then she asks what would be lost.  She agrees there is a                
 place to write regulations and a place to write statutes.                     
 Currently, there is a problem with finding the balance of this                
 relationship between the statute writers and the regulation                   
 writers.  She agreed this may be overkill, but sometimes it is                
 necessary to overcorrect to find the proper balance.                          
 Number 212                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN understood the frustration being felt with the           
 regulatory process, but he wondered if the compromise suggested by            
 Representative Ogan was not a better idea.  Should they set the               
 guidelines of the contracts, while allowing for some flexibility,             
 they could then revisit them next year and make changes if the                
 Administration did not follow legislative intent.  He added this              
 would allow for legislative review, while removing the handcuffs of           
 the precise language.                                                         
 Number 239                                                                    
 MS. KNUTH stated if the sin of attorneys is trying to be precise,             
 then this bill is guilty of that sin as well.  It is setting out              
 with total precision of what that contract is going to say.  By               
 keeping it simple, the legislature would set out just the                     
 parameters of the contract, but not the exact language.  This will            
 just help those seeking to find the loopholes in the contracts.               
 Thus, she agreed with the comments of Representative Green.                   
 CHAIR JAMES asked if the existing language, as indicated by the               
 sponsor, does not already allow for changes in state or federal               
 law.  She thought this language was pretty comprehensive.                     
 MS. KNUTH answered by stating an example on page 8, line 27, of an            
 agreement where the third party agent agrees to provide as required           
 by AS 28.12.150.  She asked who would know in the future that this            
 statute was the only applicable requirement for insurance.  Should            
 there be another unspecified statute that is applicable, then the             
 vendor could say they do not have to comply.  Another possibility             
 would be that the revisor of statutes changes this statute to                 
 another number, which is then unspecified in this contract.  These            
 were the reasons this language was too restrictive in allowing the            
 department to solve any future problems that may arise.                       
 Number 273                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he had no problem with some                         
 wordsmithing on the language of this contract, but suggested that             
 any concern of the Department of Law could be addressed by deleting           
 subparagraph 2.  He stated they had already said the agent would be           
 required to comply with all applicable laws, and so it was not                
 necessary to specify the requirement to comply with insurance laws            
 under statute AS 28.12.150.  His interpretation of this meant that            
 the contractor was required to comply with any insurance                      
 requirements and not just those of AS 28.12.150.  He reiterated               
 that the wording of this contract is very specific that the agent             
 is required to comply with the law, and so if the law changes, the            
 contract changes.                                                             
 Number 292                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER feels she picked a good example, since having           
 heard this bill before in the Transportation Committee, she just              
 found an example of a paragraph that could be removed from this               
 bill.  He stated this was a close call, since he agrees that there            
 is a real need for regulation reform and that some agencies                   
 runamuck, but felt this was the wrong agency they were picking                
 on.  He also thought this was a situation of micro-managing, which            
 the legislature says they do not like to do.  Thus, he would                  
 support the idea of adding the wording substantial similarity to              
 the wording of the bill.                                                      
 CHAIR JAMES asked if he would make this in the form of a motion, as           
 a conceptual amendment.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that on page 7, line 13, the verbiage             
 be amended to read for a third party agent must substantially read            
 as follows, and that this language be adopted at the appropriate              
 places throughout the bill.                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any discussion on that amendment.              
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated for the record that this amendment                
 would also apply to page 10, line 15 and page 13, line 14.                    
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to this amendment.               
 Hearing none, the amendment passed.  She asked if there was any               
 other discussion.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to pass CSHB 210(TRA) as amended with              
 individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.                            
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections.  Hearing none, the            
 bill passed out of committee.                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects