04/06/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB215 | |
| HB171 | |
| HB1 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 215 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 2011
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 215
"An Act relating to the judicial review of a right-of-way lease
or the development or construction of an oil or gas pipeline on
state land."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 171
"An Act relating to arrests without warrants by peace officers
for certain misdemeanors."
- MOVED CSHB 171(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 1
"An Act stating a public policy that allows a person to choose
or decline any mode of securing health care services."
- MOVED CSHB 1(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 31(JUD)
"An Act relating to the counting of write-in votes."
- BILL HEARING RESCHEDULED TO 4/8/11
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 215
SHORT TITLE: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PIPELINE PROJECT/ROW
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT
03/29/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/11 (H) JUD
04/06/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 171
SHORT TITLE: ARRESTS FOR MISDEMEANORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MUNOZ BY REQUEST
02/25/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/11 (H) JUD
03/25/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/25/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/25/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/28/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 1
SHORT TITLE: POLICY FOR SECURING HEALTH CARE SERVICES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GATTO, LYNN
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) HSS, JUD
03/01/11 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/01/11 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/08/11 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/08/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/11 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/15/11 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/15/11 (H) Moved CSHB 1(HSS) Out of Committee
03/15/11 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/16/11 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) 2DP 3NR
03/16/11 (H) DP: DICK, KELLER
03/16/11 (H) NR: SEATON, MILLER, HERRON
04/01/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/01/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/01/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/04/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/04/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/11 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/11 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
House Majority Office
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 215, responded to
questions and provided comments on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Mike Chenault, Speaker, House of Representatives.
JOHN HUTCHINS, Assistant Attorney General
Oil, Gas & Mining Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 215.
TINA M. GROVIER, Attorney at Law
Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 215.
DANIEL R. FAUSKE, President
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Department of Revenue (DOR);
CEO/Executive Director
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 215.
HAROLD HEINZE, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority (ANGDA)
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions and provided
comments during discussion of HB 215.
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff
Representative Cathy Munoz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 171, responded to a
question on behalf of Representative Munoz, sponsor by request.
KAREN SAWYER, Staff
Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed HB 1 on behalf of Representative
Gatto, one of the bill's joint prime sponsors.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:24 PM
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Gatto, Lynn,
Pruitt, Thompson, Holmes, and Chenault (alternate) were present
at the call to order. Representatives Gruenberg and Keller
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 215 - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PIPELINE PROJECT/ROW
1:07:34 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 215, "An Act relating to the judicial review of a
right-of-way lease or the development or construction of an oil
or gas pipeline on state land."
1:08:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 215, Version 27-LS0741\I, Bullock,
4/5/11, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:10:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT, as the sponsor, explained that the
objective of HB 215 is to prohibit the filing of lawsuits that
have the potential to delay construction of intrastate natural
gas pipelines. Proposing to modify current statute, HB 215's
provisions would only apply to right-of-ways on state land.
Under the bill, claims may be filed only by an applicant, a
competing applicant, or a person who has a direct financial
interest affected by the lease of a right-of-way; the requests
for judicial review must be filed within 60 days of the
publication of notice for a right-of-way lease application;
judicial review may only be granted for claims challenging the
validity of the statute, or claims [asserting] a denial of
rights [provided by] the Alaska State Constitution; any claim
not filed within the 60-day timeframe would be barred; and all
claims must be filed with the Alaska Superior Court, which would
have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the proceeding but no
jurisdiction to grant any injunctive relief with the exception
of the issuance of a final judgment. House Bill 215 was modeled
after 43 U.S.C. 1652(d) - the federal Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Authorization Act (TAPAA) adopted in 1973 - and is similar to
legislation passed in 1973 - that being Senate Bill 3.
CHAIR GATTO, noting that [both existing and proposed AS
38.35.200(a)] would allow those who have a direct financial
interest affected by the lease of a right-of-way to seek
judicial review, asked whether environmental groups or the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would be considered to
have such an interest.
1:13:43 PM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, House Majority Office, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Mike
Chenault, Speaker, House of Representatives, offered his
understanding that such entities wouldn't have standing to seek
such a review. He then went on to explain that Version I
incorporates a change suggested by the Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation (AGDC). Specifically, Section 1 of
Version I, by altering AS 38.34.050(c)(3), would exempt the AGDC
- as a subsidiary of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC) - from having to include in its right-of-way lease
certain of the covenants outlined in proposed AS 38.35.120
related to common carriers; this change would ensure that the
AGDC's proposed natural gas pipeline, as a contract-carrier
pipeline, could obtain a right-of-way lease under AS 38.35. He
characterized the existing statutory language as redundant and
prohibitive towards the development of an intrastate natural gas
pipeline.
MR. WRIGHT explained that Sections 2-4 provide conforming
changes to AS 38.35.100(d) and AS 38.35.120(a) and (b) related
to Section 1's proposed changes. In response to a question, he
offered his understanding that an intrastate natural gas
pipeline would fall under the purview of the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA), and that HB 215 would not apply to
the proposed natural gas pipeline authorized under the Alaska
Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA). He then went on to explain that
Version I's Section 5 would ensure that only the applicant, a
competing applicant, or a person who has a direct financial
interest affected by the lease of a right-of-way would have
standing to seek a judicial review, with the applicant
himself/herself being able to seek such a review at any time;
this is intended to limit the ability of those who are simply
opposed to the construction of natural gas pipelines to stop
such necessary projects in Alaska.
MR. WRIGHT explained that Section 6 - again, modeled on the
TAPAA - is intended to preclude lawsuits against any phase of
development or construction after a right-of-way has been
issued. Under Section 6, [claims] must be brought within 60
days from the [date of the particular action in question], and
must be filed with the Alaska Superior Court, which, except in
conjunction with the issuance of a final judgment, would have no
jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief, whether it be in the
form of a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction,
a permanent injunction, or a stay against the issuance of a
right-of-way, permit, lease, certificate, license, or other
authorization.
MR. WRIGHT, in conclusion, added that conforming changes were
made throughout Version I such that the bill would apply to the
construction of all natural gas pipelines within the state.
1:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES sought clarification regarding whether
such pipelines must be entirely within the state in order for
the bill to apply.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT offered his understanding that that
would be the case: HB 215 would only apply to state-issued
right-of-ways on state land.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT sought clarification that the bill could
also apply in situations involving a natural gas pipeline's
"spur line" if that spur line were entirely within Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT indicated that that would be the case.
Regardless of how any interstate natural gas pipeline project is
progressing, in terms of resource development in Alaska, HB 215
would allow the state to control [its intrastate natural gas
pipelines].
1:29:14 PM
JOHN HUTCHINS, Assistant Attorney General, Oil, Gas & Mining
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), in
response to a question, offered his understanding that under
existing [AS 38.35], any pipeline right-of-way lease must
include certain covenants, one of them being that the pipeline
shall be a common carrier. Under HB 215, that covenant would
not be required in the AGDC's right-of-way lease pertaining to
its proposed natural gas pipeline.
1:32:00 PM
TINA M. GROVIER, Attorney at Law, Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot,
in response to further questions, explained that natural gas
pipelines, in contrast to oil pipelines, tend to be contract
carriers, which allows contracting shippers to send a specified
amount of their natural gas through the pipeline without having
their "interests" diminished.
1:34:03 PM
DANIEL R. FAUSKE, President, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC), Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC),
Department of Revenue (DOR); CEO/Executive Director, Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), Department of Revenue (DOR),
indicated that HB 215 is one of two pieces of legislation that
would help the AGDC to continue working on its proposed natural
gas pipeline project. The main issue [the AGDC and the AHFC]
wanted addressed pertained to common carriers versus contract
pertaining to state-leased lands, [has been addressed via
Version I]. In conclusion, he indicated that [the AGDC and AHFC
are] in support of HB 215.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES sought clarification regarding Section 6's
proposed repeal and reenactment of AS 38.35.200(b).
MS. GROVIER reiterated that the language of Section 6's proposed
subsection (b) was derived largely from the TAPPA - specifically
43 U.S.C. 1652(d) - and indicated that that language, although
altered to address state issues instead of federal issues, would
essentially limit the types of lawsuits that could be brought
against [an intrastate natural gas pipeline] and the types of
relief that could be received via such litigation. In response
to a question, she explained that the language on page 6, lines
25-29, sets out both the aforementioned 60-day timeframe and the
stipulations that a judicial review may only be granted for
claims challenging the validity of the statute, or claims
asserting that a particular action [would result or had
resulted] in a denial of rights provided by the Alaska State
Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES surmised, then, that under Section 6's
proposed AS 38.35.200(b), failure to follow the procedures
outlined in AS 38.35 would no longer be grounds for judicial
review.
MS. GROVIER concurred. In response to another question, she
offered her understanding that due to energy shortages and the
desire to make the resources of the North Slope available in
order to meet the country's urgent energy needs, the language of
the TAPPA precluded judicial review based on such a challenge.
She said she presumes that similar motivations regarding natural
gas engendered Section 6's proposed removal of such grounds from
existing AS 38.35.200(b). In response to other questions, she
indicated that Section 5 would apply to both oil pipelines and
natural gas pipelines - though predominately oil pipelines - and
that Section 6 would apply only to natural gas pipelines; and
surmised that those sections primarily address pipeline right-
of-ways because that's what AS 38.35 pertains to.
CHAIR GATTO questioned whether Section 6's proposed 60-day
deadline for bringing a claim alleging the invalidity of AS
38.35 was constitutional.
MS. GROVIER surmised that if the court finds that restriction to
be unconstitutional, then it would allow such claims to be
brought forth. In response to a further question, she offered
her belief that HB 215 would not change any existing statutory
or constitutional notification requirements pertaining to the
disposal/lease of state lands or interests therein.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether the adoption of HB 215
would raise primacy issues.
1:51:15 PM
HAROLD HEINZE, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Natural Gas
Development Authority (ANGDA), Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Revenue (DOR), mentioned that he'd not yet had a
chance to review Version I of HB 215; offered his understanding
of what the original version of the bill would do; and,
describing what the ANGDA went through several years ago with
regard to a proposed spur line, characterized the state's
existing process for obtaining a lease for an intrastate
pipeline right-of-way as a very good, comfortable,
[appropriate,] and effective process. He also noted that
existing AS 38.35.200(b) already provides a very limited basis
for challenges, and indicated that the ANGDA hasn't any problem
with that provision because the ANGDA's intention is to follow
the process, thereby precluding any such legal challenges from
being brought forth to begin with. In response to a question,
Mr. Heinze agreed to provide additional comments on HB 215 once
he's had a chance to read Version I.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the motion to
adopt Version I as the working document. There being no further
objections, Version I was before the committee.
CHAIR GATTO relayed that HB 215, Version I, would be held over.
HB 171 - ARRESTS FOR MISDEMEANORS
1:59:19 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 171, "An Act relating to arrests without warrants
by peace officers for certain misdemeanors." [Left pending from
the hearing on 3/28/11 was the motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1.]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 5
following "AS 11.41":
Insert "and there is reasonable cause to
believe arrest without warrant is a practical
necessity to prevent imminent physical harm to the
public"
2:01:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES then made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "certain misdemeanors"
Insert "assault in the fourth degree or an
ordinance with elements similar to assault in the
fourth degree under certain circumstances"
Page 2, lines 3 - 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"(D) committed assault in the fourth degree
under AS 11.41.230 or an ordinance with elements
similar to assault in the fourth degree under
AS 11.41.230 and the officer has reasonable cause to
believe arrest without warrant is necessary to prevent
imminent physical harm to a person;"
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that Conceptual Amendment 2
would narrow the scope of HB 171 such that its proposed
warrantless-arrest authority would apply only in situations
involving the misdemeanor crime of assault in the fourth degree
or a local ordinance with similar elements, and only when the
officer has reasonable cause to believe that a warrantless
arrest is necessary to prevent imminent physical harm from
occurring. The intent is to ensure that law enforcement
officers have the ability to prevent further harm from occurring
even when they don't witness the initial assault, without having
the bill apply to all other misdemeanor offenses against the
person.
2:02:53 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska State
Legislature, relayed that Representative Munoz, HB 171's sponsor
by request, was amenable to Conceptual Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT removed his objection.
CHAIR GATTO, noting that there were no further objections,
announced that Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON began a motion to report the bill from
committee but then withdrew it.
2:04:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, to add to Amendment 2's proposed new subparagraph
(D) the words, "that an" after the word, "believe", and the
word, "a" after the word, "without". There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:06:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 171, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 171(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:07 p.m. to 2:14 p.m.
HB 1 - POLICY FOR SECURING HEALTH CARE SERVICES
2:14:03 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 1, "An Act stating a public policy that allows a
person to choose or decline any mode of securing health care
services." [Before the committee was CSHB 1(HSS), and a
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 1, Version 27-
LS0006\B, Bailey, 4/1/11, which had been adopted as the working
document on 4/4/11.]
CHAIR GATTO mentioned that he's one of HB 1's joint prime
sponsors.
2:14:22 PM
KAREN SAWYER, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Gatto, one of HB 1's
joint prime sponsors, relayed that during the bill's last
hearing, a concern was raised about whether the language of the
proposed state policy could possibly be interpreted as allowing
for something that's contrary to public policy or current law,
and offered her belief that language on page 2, lines 5-6 -
which defines the term, "mode of obtaining" in part as meaning
directly purchasing healthcare services from a healthcare
provider - addresses that concern. However, she relayed,
members' packets do include a proposed conceptual amendment the
second part of which would further clarify that particular issue
by adding a reference to the statutory definition of the term,
"health care provider" [as its used in Title 9]. Another
concern raised during the bill's last hearing revolved around
the bill's proposal to establish a short title in uncodified
law, and the first part of the aforementioned conceptual
amendment would delete the short-title provision located on page
1, lines 4-6 - Section 1 of Version B. The proposed conceptual
amendment read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, Line 4-6
Delete lines 4-6
Page 2, Line 6
Insert after health care provider (AS DEFINED IN
SEC. 09.55.560)
MS. SAWYER noted that members' packets now also contain a six-
page document from the Goldwater Institute that addresses
questions pertaining to the model legislation - developed by the
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - upon which HB 1
was modeled.
2:17:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion] that the conceptual
amendment be divided into Conceptual Amendment 1 and Conceptual
Amendment 2, with Conceptual Amendment 1 being the proposed
change to page 1, lines 4-6, and Conceptual Amendment 2 being
the proposed change to page 2, line 6. There being no
objection, the conceptual amendment was so divided.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, Line 4-6
Delete lines 4-6
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it is generally the legislature's
policy not to provide for short titles in uncodified law, and so
unless there is a really important reason, regardless of the
merits of the bill, he doesn't see a need for providing for a
short title for HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his understanding that this is the
first time the legislature has done anything related to
healthcare freedom, and shared his belief that to call the bill
the [Alaska Health Freedom Act], therefore, implies that there
may be more adjustments needed later on. He said it seems like
retaining that provision wouldn't cause harm but could help.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, though, that if [the bill]
is called the Alaska Health Freedom Act, and it is subsequently
added to, it could raise questions regarding whether any such
addition still falls under the title, because currently it only
addresses this one short policy.
CHAIR GATTO, indicating agreement with Representative Keller,
surmised that if the bill is so added to, its short-title
provision could be deleted at a later date.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued that the phrase, "Alaska Health
Freedom Act" is not a neutral term and connotes that it is
Alaska's very best policy for healthcare. So although people
might agree with the substance of the bill, they might not agree
that they want to have that kind of a slanted definition.
Again, very rarely are bills given short titles. In conclusion,
he ventured that removal of the short-title provision might
render the bill less controversial.
2:22:30 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gruenberg voted in
favor of Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives Lynn, Keller,
Pruitt, Thompson, and Gatto voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-5.
2:23:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON made a motion to adopt [Conceptual]
Amendment 2 [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, Line 6
Insert after health care provider (AS DEFINED IN
SEC. 09.55.560)
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion,
and suggested that that definition be made available to members.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:24 p.m. to 2:27 p.m.
CHAIR GATTO noted that members now have a copy of AS
09.55.560(2), which read:
(2) "health care provider" means an acupuncturist
licensed under AS 08.06; an audiologist or speech-
language pathologist licensed under AS 08.11; a
chiropractor licensed under AS 08.20; a dental
hygienist licensed under AS 08.32; a dentist licensed
under AS 08.36; a nurse licensed under AS 08.68; a
dispensing optician licensed under AS 08.71; a
naturopath licensed under AS 08.45; an optometrist
licensed under AS 08.72; a pharmacist licensed under
AS 08.80; a physical therapist or occupational
therapist licensed under AS 08.84; a physician or
physician assistant licensed under AS 08.64; a
podiatrist; a psychologist and a psychological
associate licensed under AS 08.86; a hospital as
defined in AS 47.32.900, including a governmentally
owned or operated hospital; an employee of a health
care provider acting within the course and scope of
employment; an ambulatory surgical facility and other
organizations whose primary purpose is the delivery of
health care, including a health maintenance
organization, individual practice association,
integrated delivery system, preferred provider
organization or arrangement, and a physical hospital
organization;
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that AS 09.55.560(2)
doesn't include midwives.
MS. SAWYER mentioned that another state used the term, "lawful"
when referring to health care providers, rather than referencing
a specific definition.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he prefers the approach taken by
Amendment 2, since what may be considered "lawful" could change.
2:30:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, therefore, made a motion to
conceptually amend Conceptual Amendment 2 such that it would
include midwives. There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 2 was conceptually amended to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then removed his objection to the
motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2.
CHAIR GATTO, noting that there were no further objections,
relayed that Conceptual Amendment 2, as conceptually amended,
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether HB 1 does anything other
than set a policy.
MS. SAWYER indicated that the bill is doing just that, setting a
policy that the [legislature] believes in the right established
by the Tenth Amendment, that being that the state has the right
to regulate health insurance and healthcare services.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 1.
2:32:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 1, Version 27-LS0006\B, Bailey, 4/1/11,
as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 1(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
2:33:21 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:33 p.m.