Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/01/1996 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 1, 1996
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 363
"An Act requiring banks to pay interest on money in reserve
accounts held in connection with mortgage loans."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 422
"An Act prohibiting the adoption of regulations by an agency of the
executive branch of state government, annulling all regulations
adopted by an agency of the executive branch, repealing provisions
of the Administrative Procedure Act, and relating to additional
legislation to carry out the purposes of this Act; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49(STA)
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
creating a highway fund from state taxes on fuel used for the
propulsion of highway or road use motor vehicles.
- CSHJR 49(STA) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 368
"An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign
financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by
the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists
that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses
of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 317
"An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign
financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by
the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists
that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses
of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 363
SHORT TITLE: INTEREST ON MORTGAGE ESCROW ACCTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2361 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2361 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2361 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, L&C, FINANCE
01/18/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/18/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/23/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 422
SHORT TITLE: ANNUL ALL ADMIN. REGS; REPEAL APA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY, Foster
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/16/96 2454 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/96 2454 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 49
SHORT TITLE: DEDICATED HIGHWAY FUND
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/16/95 2238 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/16/95 2239 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION, FINANCE
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 368
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2362 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2362 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2362 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 317
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FINKELSTEIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/21/95 1427 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/21/95 1427 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/08/96 2358 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/08/96 2358 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 363.
RICHARD ENBERG, Executive Vice President
First National Bank of Anchorage
646 West 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 265-3563
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 363.
ROBIN WARD, President
Summit Title Insurance Agency Ltd.
341 West Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 562-3770
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 363.
GARY ROTH, President
Denali State Bank
119th North Cushman Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-1400
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 363.
HEATHER BOSTLEY
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
507 "E" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-3661
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 363.
LUCILLE STIETZ, Senior Vice President
National Bank of Alaska
P.O. Box 107025
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 257-3442
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 363.
LISA BELL, Senior Vice President
Alaska Federal Savings Bank
2094 Jordan Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 790-5104
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 363.
JOE RYAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Al Vezey
State Capitol, Room 216
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 422.
JOHN LINDBACK, Chief of Staff
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110015
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0015
Telephone: (907) 465-3520
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 422.
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation and Regulations Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 422.
GERALD NEWTON
2616 West Lancelot Drive
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-4839
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 422.
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HJR 49.
SAM KITO III, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Telephone: (907) 465-3904
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 49.
ROBERT EAKMAN, General Manager
Alaska Independent Truckers Association
P.O. Box 220366
Anchorage, Alaska 99522
Telephone: (907) 276-1934
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 49.
JACK WIEGEL, President
Alaska Independent Truckers Association
7227 Bosel
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 344-8939
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 49.
TED DEBOER, Alaska Operations Manager
Totem Ocean Trailer Express
2511 Tidewater Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 265-7211
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 49.
DUANE SAULNIER
P.O. Box 90500
Anchorage, Alaska 99509
Telephone: (907) 344-8799
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 49.
BLAINE GHAN, Anchorage Terminal Manager
Lynden Transport
3027 Rampart Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-4800
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 49.
KYM SWIFT
P.O. Box 202087
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: (907) 276-7648
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 49.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-08, SIDE A
Number 0000
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:00 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives James, Ivan, Porter, and Willis. Members
absent were Representatives Ogan, Green, and Robinson.
HB 363 - INTEREST ON MORTGAGE ESCROW ACCTS
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 363.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Con Bunde, sponsor of HB 363.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said he appreciated the House State
Affairs Committee for hearing HB 363 again. He said additional
research had been done to determine the actual cost to service an
account, and the amount of money made in interest on accounts held
in escrow. However, the information and numbers were not available
today. He mentioned the concern regarding an increase in mortgage
prices according to testimony from the industry. He alleged there
were people who serviced mortgages and did not have a piece of the
action so they were obviously making a profit from the escrow
account. He also stated there were people who kept the mortgage
and serviced it doubling their profits. Representative Bunde
further stated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
law was passed in 1970 prohibiting lenders and mortgage servicers
from requiring consumers to maintain more than an extra two months'
cushion in their accounts. He alleged this was widely ignored. He
read the following statement into the record.
"In issuing this proposed rule HUD reviewed the existing escrow
accounting procedures. The prevalent practice exists called single
item analysis where the lender accounts for each escrow item
separately. The lender may collect more money under the single
item then under aggregate."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE further said the lending institutions had been
ignoring RESPA since the 1970's and more regulation was needed. He
cited institutions simply ignored the two month limitation and used
the single item accounting process to make more money. He asserted
he was not against a profit being made, but rather he wanted to
bring some sunshine into the industry so the consumer could make an
informed decision. Representative Bunde, in conclusion, said
fences needed to be placed appropriately to encourage due
diligence.
The record reflected the presence of Representatives Robinson,
Green and Ogan.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Richard Enberg.
Number 0410
RICHARD ENBERG, Executive Vice President, First National Bank of
Anchorage, said he was opposed to HB 363 because it was liable to
cause lending operations to reconsider what they were doing. The
banks in Alaska were subject to the federal laws mentioned and the
appropriate violations under the laws, he stated. He further said
mortgages had become a commodity item sold to a national market.
Those mortgages, he said, were serviced by people outside of
Alaska, and alleged a law of this nature would put Alaskan mortgage
firms at a distinct disadvantage. Mr. Enberg said he would have to
look at both the originating and servicing side to determine the
impact HB 363 would have on his business. He further said the
other problems associated with HB 363 would be reprogramming
computers, changing rates on mortgages, and slowing down municipal
tax collections. In conclusion, he said, to offset the problems,
a service charge would have to be required.
Number 0662
CHAIR JAMES wondered if the work done on mortgage escrow accounts
was comparable to other escrow accounts.
Number 0680
MR. ENBERG replied he was not sure what other escrow accounts she
was referring to. However, if she was referring to collection
escrows, there were three parties involved - the bank, the buyer,
and the seller. He further said a collection escrow was not the
same as an escrow mortgage account as each involved different
duties.
Number 0720
CHAIR JAMES said she wanted to compare the work load for a bank
between mortgage escrow accounts and other escrow accounts.
Number 0736
MR. ENBERG asked if she meant the other escrow collection services.
Number 0740
CHAIR JAMES replied, yes, she wanted to compare the work load
between an escrow collection and a mortgage escrow. She said she
understood there were more payouts because of insurance and taxes
for a mortgage escrow account compared to an escrow where there was
only a buyer and a seller. She wondered again if the work load was
the same.
Number 0775
MR. ENBERG replied the work load was not the same. He cited the
fees depended on the size of the escrow rather than the type of
account. He further said there were a variety of things a
fiduciary agent could do for a seller and a buyer, and these were
two separate issues.
Number 0820
CHAIR JAMES said she was trying to determine what the service
charge would be on servicing a mortgage escrow account if there was
no interest to cover the fees.
Number 0860
MR. ENBERG said he would have to look at both the servicing and the
originating operations. He said it cost money to originate a loan.
He further stated it was important to look at establishing a long-
term relationship with the customer, which would hopefully offset
the cost of producing a loan.
Number 0890
CHAIR JAMES asked if an origination fee was paid separately.
Number 0900
MR. ENBERG replied, yes, an origination fee was paid separately,
but it did not cover the cost. He cited the First National Bank of
Anchorage was offering a $150 coupon off loan origination and
closing fees. He said the bank was eating those fees.
Number 0940
CHAIR JAMES said she understood the business decisions and the net
result was to make a profit. She further said she wanted to know
what was fair and if the interest on the escrow accounts was
contributing in a major way to offset the cost of maintaining the
accounts. She commented on the varying sizes of escrow accounts
and wondered if individuals were paying disproportionately.
Number 0990
MR. ENBERG said he did not know if they were paying
disproportionately as taxes and insurance were based on the value
of the property.
Number 1000
CHAIR JAMES said she meant the balance in the escrow was different
based on the value of the property and wondered if the cost of
servicing the accounts was the same.
Number 1015
MR. ENBERG said the cost of servicing a loan was the same whether
it was for $50 thousand or $150 thousand.
Number 1028
CHAIR JAMES said there were varying balances in escrow accounts and
the interest would be more for those with a bigger balance.
Number 1040
MR. ENBERG said he agreed, but it was a dollar cost averaging
situation. He alleged all mortgages would be covered to make a
profit.
Number 1059
CHAIR JAMES said she did not want people to pay more for the
services they were currently getting. She thanked Mr. Enberg for
his time today.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Robin Ward.
Number 1088
ROBIN WARD, President, Summit Title Insurance Agency Ltd., said the
testimony regarding the abuse of over escrowing was six years old,
and aggressive action had been taken to correct the abuses
nationwide. She said she was concerned about another regulation
over correcting the situation. She also said she was concerned
about the administrative cost for reporting interest, and was more
concerned it would end-up costing the consumer more. She thanked
the committee members and said she was available to answer any
questions.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Gary Roth.
Number 1175
GARY ROTH, President, Denali State Bank in Fairbanks, said he was
opposed to HB 363. He said it was poorly worded, but more
importantly he wanted to see the bill killed. He said his
customers were happy to escrow their insurance and tax payments so
they did not have to worry about delinquency. Mr. Roth further
said the cost of administering an escrow was costly to the bank.
He cited, Denali State Bank subscribed to a service that provided
information on taxes from the borough. He also said HB 363
referred to banks only and would jeopardize entry into a secondary
market, and was concerned the secondary market would withdrawal
from Alaska as a result. He cited the contract collection fees
associated with an escrow account were a $100 set-up fee, $50
annual fee and $5 per month dispersement fee, and was viewed as a
service to the community rather than a profit maker. In
conclusion, he cited an example of interest paid on escrow. He
said a $2,000 escrow account for taxes and insurance on the
mortgage loan would produce a $1,000 average balance throughout the
year yielding $30 in interest at passbook savings, which was much
less than what the contract collection holder in the bank was
charged. He thanked the committee members and said he was
available to answer any questions.
Number 1360
CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Roth for his testimony. She said the
escrow account varied based on the value of the property, and was
concerned about the disproportionate interest and service fees.
She was concerned legislation would affect those with smaller
escrow accounts by paying more.
Number 1412
MR. ROTH said he understood and agreed with Chair James. He cited
his previous example of a $2,000 escrow account with an average
monthly balance of $1,000. He further said the more expensive
homes in Fairbanks would probably double to an average monthly
balance of $2,000.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Heather Bostley.
Number 1450
HEATHER BOSTLEY representing the Alaska Public Interest Research
Group (AKPIRG), said she was concerned about the cost. She said
she supported HB 363 because at the end of a 30 year mortgage loan,
if no interest was paid the money would work less. She stated
other states such as Iowa and California were practicing this and
doing it well. She cited the interest rates were ranging from 2
percent to 5 percent. She reiterated she was in favor of HB 363.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Lucille Stietz.
Number 1530
LUCILLE STIETZ, Senior Vice President, National Bank of Alaska
(NBA), said she agreed with Mr. Enberg's and Ms. Ward's testimony.
She said the average mortgage loan was written for a 15 or 30 year
period. The average life of a loan nationwide was six years due to
refinancing and moving. She said NBA provided local servicing for
Alaskan borrowers and if HB 363 was passed, the loans, she alleged,
would go to an outside servicer affecting the 56 people employed by
NBA's Servicing Loan Department. She thanked the committee members
and said she would be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Lisa Bell.
Number 1650
LISA BELL, Senior Vice President, Alaska Federal Savings Bank, said
she supported the previous testimony. She stated Alaska Federal
Savings Bank had been a mortgage banking participant since 1935.
She said the headquarters was located in Juneau and the bank served
four southeast communities. She said the servicing portfolio was
similar in size to Mt. McKinley's. She commented smaller banks
would be more affected by HB 363 compared to larger banks. She
alleged the bill would be burdensome to the banks and probably
provide very little benefit to the borrowers. She felt her bank
was already a conservative custodian of the customer's money and
exercised due diligence. She cited in the wake of RESPA's changes
trial runs were tested and discovered more money would need to be
collected from the borrowers therefore it was decided to adopt a
more conservative approach. She announced the bank now collected
only a one month cushion. She cited the average escrow balance was
$1,000 over the course of the year. According to a profitability
analysis of the servicing department in September of 1995, she
found the bank was barely making a profit and the scales would tip
easily if required to pay interest on escrow accounts. She further
commented on accounts served at the local community level. She
said she felt strongly the citizens needed instate servicing. Ms.
Bell said California paid 2 percent in interest which equated to
about $20 a year on a $1,000 average balance. She asserted that
was not a lot of money especially coupled with taxes. She also
said the California law did not provide for payment of interest to
out-of-state borrowers if the land was not located in California.
She said she could see a situation whereby HB 363 would scare the
borrowers out of Alaska.
Number 1880
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON commented Alaska Federal Savings Bank
was following and practicing the federal law, and asked if other
banks were also.
Number 1895
MS. BELL said she would have to ask the other bankers because she
was the only servicer located in Juneau. She said she did not know
what cushion they adopted, but said they were all acting within the
law and probably even more conservatively than realized.
Number 1912
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reiterated he was not anti-profit. He
asserted every business needed to make a profit. He said a banker
commenting on eating the cost was being disingenuous. He stated
they did not eat the cost but simply made it up elsewhere. He
again stated he wanted everyone to make a profit. Representative
Bunde commented on the previous testimony regarding the minimal
amount of interest made, and further said it was a matter of
principle, and the informed choice of a consumer. He commented on
previous testimony regarding the happy mortgage holders in
Fairbanks, and wondered if they would be as pleased if they
received an exact accounting of what it cost to service the loan
and how much was being made on interest in the escrow. He asserted
that was the question, and he heard no answers today. He said
there was specific testimony on the cost between a borrower and a
seller, but it was not available on a mortgage. He wondered why
that was kept in the dark. He said he was not suggesting there was
something to hide, but the information was very slow in
forthcoming. Representative Bunde questioned the banks treating
the consumers as children because it was more comfortable if the
bank paid the taxes and insurance. He further said a similar law
was passed in 14 other states of which no one was put out of work
and the banks did not close. He said he did not want that to
happen, but the people deserved an accurate accounting. Therefore,
side boards were needed to raise the confidence of the general
public.
Number 2090
CHAIR JAMES said Representative Bunde made a good argument. She
cited previous testimony stating the average escrow account was
$1,000 yielding approximately $50 in interest. Other testimony
indicated that escrow for buyers and sellers was $200 a year which
was a sizeable amount more. She stated her biggest fear was
passing legislation that would make the people pay more. She
stated she agreed with HB 363 philosophically, but because of the
manner in which a bank calculates a profit overall considering the
money in the accounts to service their customers, she could not
support HB 363. She further said the majority of people were happy
to pay their taxes and insurance per month in their house payment
and for those reason she would not support HB 363.
Number 2148
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said there were questions that remained
unanswered, and asked the House State Affairs Committee to pass HB
363 to the next committee of referral - the House Labor and
Commerce Committee.
Number 2163
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said he did not want to hear this bill
again as a Labor and Commerce Committee member. He cited a bill
was being discussed in the Labor and Commerce Committee now which
addressed the small loans chapters of the statutes. He said he was
convinced the cap on required interest was doing a disservice to
the consumer, because of the same issues being dealt with in HB
363. He said the loans went outside where there was no cap and
demonstrated a loss of capital and jobs in Alaska. He further said
it should be enforced through the federal law. In conclusion, he
said, he had a general philosophical problem with legislating the
market place and for all those reasons, he would not support HB
363.
Number 2233
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said when he first read the bill he was
in favor of it, but based on the testimony, he changed his mind.
He said the industry should have the latitude it needed, and
therefore would not support HB 363.
Number 2266
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if a consumer had the option to
not have an escrow account.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied no it was not possible.
Number 2280
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said he was wrong.
Number 2298
MS. STIETZ replied it depended on the holder of the loan. She
cited some mortgage holders allowed the banks to waive the
collection of escrow if the loan to value was 80 percent or less.
She further said some outside lenders waived the escrow interest on
conventional loans and paid less because it was a high risk loan.
She cited some investors such as, VA and FHA, did not allow the
escrow account to be waived.
Number 2382
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned if a state law was needed to
enforce an already existing federal law creating more regulations.
She also said she believed in consumer protection, and wondered
what she was missing and not understanding because a law already
existed.
Number 2418
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied the 55 miles per hour speed limit was
also a law. He asserted RESPA was not being followed. The
Attorneys General of seven states in the report titled
"Overcharging on Mortgage: Violations of Escrow Account Limits by
the Mortgage Lending Industry," said it was followed at face value,
and the single item accounting system was used to get around the
law. He stated it had to be enforced further and we were not
getting the information. He further wondered what they were
hiding, and if they were hiding something maybe the interest would
keep them from continuing to hide it further.
Number 2444
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was evidence RESPA was not followed in
Alaska.
Number 2450
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON further asked if the Attorney General from
Alaska had looked at this issue.
Number 2463
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the Attorney General from Alaska was not
part of the group that investigated this issue. He reiterated it
would be better if the banking industry shared the information with
their consumers.
Number 2479
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN wondered if there were statistics
available that suggested the banks following the laws were
disadvantaged somehow.
TAPE 96-08, SIDE B
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied there were 14 states that required
banks to pay interest, and there were still mortgages, people still
bought homes, and the banking institutions still survived.
Number 0021
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if the Labor and Commerce
Committee would look HB 363 in more depth as it was the committee
that dealt with these issues. However, she said, she was not ready
to put do pass and if no one else put do pass she wondered if it
would be able to move from the committee.
Number 0040
CHAIR JAMES replied a motion was only needed with individual
recommendations to move HB 363 from the committee. She further
stated the bill could not leave the Rules Committee without at
least one do pass recommended throughout the committee process.
She said the House State Affairs Committee could pass this bill
from the committee without a do pass.
Number 0058
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied a bill could come to the floor of the
House of Representatives without a single do pass with a two-thirds
vote.
Number 0072
MS. BELL said she did not deny that there might have been banks
that were not following RESPA previously, but the escrow accounting
rules were new and tighter phasing out the single item analysis and
moving towards an aggregate item analysis. The single item
analysis, she alleged was a servicing nightmare anyway and assumed
most banks would have opted for the aggregate item analysis. She
commented on the bank examination process and suggested RESPA would
be a high priority for the bank examiners in 1996.
Number 0134
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked who were the examiners.
Number 0140
MS. BELL said it depended if the bank had a state or federal
charter. She cited federal chartered banks fell under the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The Alaska Federal Savings
Bank, however, fell under the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS),
and state chartered banks were examined by the state.
CHAIR JAMES commented no one wanted to move the bill. She offered
to hear it again if the sentiment changed. She stated HB 363 would
remain in the House State Affairs Committee until new information
surfaced.
HB 422 - ANNUL ALL ADMIN. REGS; REPEAL APA
Number 0218
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 422.
CHAIR JAMES called on Joe Ryan, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Al Vezey to read the sponsor statement for HB 422.
Number 0218
JOE RYAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Al Vezey, said
Representative Vezey was not feeling well today and read the
following sponsor statement into the record.
"The people of Alaska have been demanding that the legislature, the
people elected to represent them, accept the responsibility and the
corresponding accountability for the laws that they the people have
to live under.
"It is time for the legislature to reclaim it's legislative
authority and accept the constitutional responsibility they have
for making laws. HB - 422 will ensure that the people of Alaska
live under laws passed by the people whom they have elected to
represent them and not by the employees they have hired to carry
out the these same laws.
"More and more Alaskans are voicing concern that the cost of
regulations has gotten out of hand. In addition to the cost, the
frustrations experienced by the public in trying to comply with an
every increasing maze of regulations, have brought the matter to
our attention. In quite a few instances, new regulations often
conflict with those already in place by federal agencies making it
impossible to get there from here.
"The question is; does the legislature want to shirk it's
responsibility and allow major policy changes to be implemented by
the employees of the state of Alaska who are not elected by any
position."
MR. RYAN: I can give you a brief summary of how this
Administrative Procedures Act came in. I remember hearing
Representative Congressman Young talking about how when he was in
this legislative body, Governor Hickel in his first term requested
an Administrative Procedures Act and they gave it to him much to
their chagrin. The...no where in the Constitution of the United
States or the state of Alaska does it say that legislative
authority will be given to the Administration, in fact, the
separation of powers is what's suppose to keep our government
working in a balance. The -- unfortunately Madison didn't die
until 1840 and his minutes of the Constitutional Convention were
such that he didn't release them, and so people didn't really know
what the founding fathers when they put the Constitution together
meant. And in the interim, people like John Marshall usurped the
authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. A
number of other people jumped in to the gap and grabbed whatever
power was available because there was no one to contradict them.
What we have in Alaska with the Administrative Procedures Act is
basically instances such as some of the things we received last
year where the Department of Labor and the Department of
Transportation adopt a whole cloth the code of federal regulations
for state regulations. Now, these were regulations that had been
made by federal bureaucrats and we in turn have them here in Alaska
as Alaska law under which people have to live...have to go through
the same appeal process and so forth and thought wasn't even given
to these things to deal with local considerations. They just said
well, we're going...proposed to adopt...here we are we're taking
CFR 43 chapters blah, blah, blah to blah, blah, blah. And this
will be it, and there's not a large public (indisc.) cry. That's
what the people in the state have...(indisc.) to live under. So,
extraordinary, if I may borrow from Thomas Paine, "these are the
times that try men's souls." Extraordinary problems sometime
require extraordinary solutions. My representative feels that it's
time the legislature come back and take the authority that it's
given by the constitution back and then if you'll notice in
the...in here it asked the Administration to propose laws to fill
the gaps that the regulations would leave and then this body will
consider those laws and decide which ones are prudent and which
ones that the citizens of the state should be required to live
under, and discard those that aren't. And, that's about all I
have.
Number 0394
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented, if all regulations were
repealed, then new regulations would need to be developed and
adopted by the legislature.
Number 0407
MR. RYAN: What this...what this bill calls for is the repeal of
4462 which is the Administrative Procedures Act, and when...when
you repeal of course the legislation that gives you authority for
the regulatory authority for the delegation of authority that goes
away because there's no substantial...substantive basis for anyone
writing a regulation. The statute had been repealed. So, it also
requires that the Administration prepare -- back here on Section
3...no I mean B.
"Each agency the executive branch of state government with the
authority to adopt regulations shall submit proposed draft
legislation necessary to accommodate this act of the House and
Senate Rules Committee on the first day of the first regulation
session of the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature."
MR. RYAN: So, because a lot of times in the past of the
Administrative Procedures Act a lot of people have come up with a
one page bill - not very comprehensive legislation - and delegated
the authority to the Administration to flush it out. Now, it will
have to be -- these laws that are in effect will have to be flushed
out by the legislature, and giving the Administration an
opportunity to contribute their thoughts and the legislature, of
course, exercising its prerogative will decide which of those
suggestions should be adopted and which shouldn't.
Number 0466
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered what type of legislation this
would require, and if the legislature would write the regulations.
Number 0490
MR. RYAN: The people that founded the country knew how difficult
it was to try to get a group of people to agree. And, the
underlying principle was if you look back at King George, and the
Declaration of Independence, how he would send his agents among us
to rob us of our substance...these are the words that are used.
They indiscriminately pass the king's regulations -- remember they
chose to facilitate their jobs and make things easier -- and so the
people in their wisdom, if you...the minutes of the Constitutional
Convention decided that legislation under which the citizens would
live would be passed by folks whom they elected to represent them.
So, if they didn't like it they could go back and get it changed by
getting rid of the people and putting someone new in. What we have
is a...the agreement when we allow the Administration to do it, it
very simply...a fellow is being paid man or woman with a state
salary, a state pen, state paper, and they just write whatever is
convenient for them to do their job. And, unless there is a large
(indisc.) cry it becomes law. And, somewhere in the arcane
thinking of the Supreme Court they said you can delegate your
authority but to take it back requires the same vote that was
required to overturn the Governor's veto. They...how this logic
was used to arrive at this conclusion a lot of people have
questioned over the years. But, of course, being what they are....
Number 0556
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned who would write the regulations.
She wondered if the legal drafters would write them and then the
legislator would review them.
Number 0566
MR. RYAN: Well, O.K., the process I would assume would be for
instance if you were to...you initiate...or to exercise your
legislative prerogative and you were to call up the legislative
drafting people and say, "I want a law that does this." And, then
our leg legal would draft that bill for you in its entirety, and
they would send it back for your preview. And you would say,
"Well, this looks fairly comprehensive legislation," and you would
introduce it. Then the various committees and so forth and the
testimony that would come from the agencies and they said, "Wait a
minute, how can we handle this because it's not (indisc. --
coughing) we have these particular problems perhaps of which you
are unaware, and we don't...won't know how to handle this." And,
then the committee would say, "Hum, well we need some
suggestions...the maker perhaps needs to address that and or
suggestions forthcoming from the Administration...how do you
think...now, put it in the...in the legislation itself." What we
come down to is something I have asked to the Administration on
numerous occasions, why they want regulations rather than making
policy. And, they have said, "When we go to court with policy we
always lose. This is our division policy...this is how the
administrative policy...when we go to court with regulations, we
win because they have the force of law." So, what does that do to
the public? If you pass a law and the Administration decides
they're going to have a policy of administering it in this respect
and someone challenges it in court and they usually lose, the
court... there must be reason why the court is ruling against them.
Where it's a regulation, the court has to look at it as a law.
And, now they come back with a...with a different interpretation
because you folk have given these people the right to write these
laws under the Administrative Procedures Act, and so the court
assumes that this is your intention - not necessarily the policy of
the Administration - so there's...there's a different perspective
given there. When... and that's how the comprehensiveness of the
legislation would be. And, from time-to-time there would be
problems that would arise in the future and these things would have
to be tweaked and amended -- nothing is ever written in stone.
Things...life is dynamic...things change. But...that would
probably be addressed from session to session.
Number 0665
CHAIR JAMES said HB 422 represented the typical problem the
legislature was facing today - being in a different place today
because of mistakes made earlier. She agreed mistakes had been
made, but she was not convinced going back to the start would solve
the problems because of the system in place.
Number 0720
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said HB 422 would repeal all regulations, and
wondered what would happen during the interim.
Number 0760
CHAIR JAMES replied there was an effective date of July 1, 1997 so
nothing would happen until then except for preparation.
Number 0770
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said as more statutes were passed at least one
should be deleted. He suggested when statutes were passed
regulatory authority should be precluded, otherwise, it turned into
a regulatory nightmare for the companies trying to operate. He
further said the cure was worse than the problem.
Number 0840
MR. RYAN: Well...If I may just add one thing as an aside, a couple
of years ago we passed house bill 65 which gave the Administration
the ability to raise fees by regulation. The last year we
collected the state income tax...we collected 100.5 million dollars
last year we collected 196 million in fees. And you folks are
trying to cut the budget, and every time you cut the budget the
fees go up on the other end to makeup the whole. So, I wonder
if...you know...is it two steps forwards...one step forward and two
steps backward, or you may consider that.
Number 0868
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said regulations needed to be reduced as well
when reducing the budget this year. He alleged the size of the
government was not decreasing and the burden was being shifted to
the user fees. He stated that was a problem.
Number 0892
CHAIR JAMES commented the legislature should not have given all its
authority away with respect to regulations. She cited the
legislature gave away its oversite power in the process.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witnesses in Juneau, Deborah Behr,
and John Lindback.
Number 0929
JOHN LINDBACK, Chief of Staff, Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
addressed policy concerns regarding HB 422. He stated Governor
Knowles' signed Administrative Order No. 157. He said the order
was an attempt to explain its concerns regarding the administrative
regulatory process. He stated it considered minimizing cost, using
"plain English," reviewing current regulations, and making the
process more accessible. He further said the Administration
adopted HB 130 passed last year by the legislature which made the
Governor more accountable for regulations. He said the power was
delegated to the Lieutenant Governor and was in the process of
implementing HB 130. He stated the Lieutenant Governor was
sympathetic to the legislature as a former member. He pointed out
HB 130 did not give authority to reject boards and commissions.
Mr. Lindback said if HB 422 was passed it would be new ground
because no other state in the U.S. had passed a similar law. He
also said the absence of regulations would give unbridled
discretion to the bureaucrat. He further stated it would be
impossible to draft a piece of legislation that foresaw every
situation which meant the bureaucrat would be making the decisions.
He said regulations were a check on bureaucratic power. He
wondered if the legislature wanted to regulate bag limits, for
example, for the Department of Fish and Game every session. He
said it appeared like an overwhelming task. He wondered about
regulating occupations. He said they wanted regulations of some
kind, and if moved to the legislative arena, how would anything get
done. In conclusion, he said, the Administration was committed to
improving and streamlining the regulatory process and making it
cost conscious. He further said HB 422 looked like chaos and left
it to state managers to interpret laws how they saw fit.
Number 1170
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and
Regulations Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, said HB 422
did more than repeal all regulations. She said it also repealed
the APA hearing procedures used by the occupational licensing
boards to allow citizens to raise complaints in a cheap forum. She
said HB 422 also repealed the Alaska Administrative Journal which
provided procurement announcements, and lists of board openings.
She cited the history of the APA. In 1946 the first federal
administrative procedures act appeared because Congress wanted to
bridle unfettered agency interpretation of statutes. In 1959
Alaska adopted the APA because it was impossible for a citizen to
determine which regulations affected them. She alleged the APA was
a consumer protection act because an agency could not adopt a
manual, policy or an interpretation that affected the public
without giving notice and an opportunity for comment. The APA also
required the Attorney General to sign-off for legal approval. She
cited if the APA was not there she would not have authority to
disapprove a regulation on legal grounds. Ms. Behr said a major
check was being taken away by repealing the APA. Therefore, the
clock was being turned back to 1959 before Alaska adopted the APA.
She also said there would be no published code of rules, but rather
interpretation of statutes. She stated she was not sure how HB 422
would be implemented. She suggested a six month review process
after which suggestions would be made of what needed to be laws.
She wondered if anything else would be accomplished during the
session. Ms. Behr also said a case resolved in court cost 30
percent more than when resolved at the administrative level and
with the repeal of the regulations, litigation was expected. She
further said HB 422 changed the role of the citizen boards and
commissions because it took away authority to set policy, for
example. She alleged this would create an unstable business
climate due to a slower response time. She said she was concerned
about the day-to-day situations which required responses when the
legislature was in session. She cited some issues required focused
attention and quick responses. She was also concerned about
routine changes in the federal programs to meet federal
requirements and the sanctions could be substantial when not in
compliance. She cited federal preemption was a concern also. She
further cited there were approximately 350 to 400 APA hearings each
year demonstrating the impact on the courts. She wondered if the
legislature wanted to take away the Department of Correction's
ability to regulate prisoners, for example. She further cited
Section 3 (b) which allowed separate agencies to bring laws to the
legislature rather than through a central process via the Governor.
In conclusion, she said, she would be happy to answer any
questions.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Gerald Newton.
Number 1837
GERALD NEWTON said he was astonished anyone would introduce a bill
such as HB 422. He alleged Representative Vezey introduced it
because most of his constituencies were part of Fort Wainwright and
it would not apply to them. He said Representative Vezey continued
to attack state institutions with no accountability. He cited the
Electrical Administrator Law which Representative Vezey was
responsible for. As a result, he alleged three homes were wired by
an unqualified contractor.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Newton to comment specifically on HB 422.
MR. NEWTON said his testimony was specifically on this bill because
the administrative part of the law was removed by Representative
Vezey and alleged HB 422 would do the same thing. He said it was
not right, not just, and asserted Representative Vezey hid in his
federal enclave and did not answer to his constituents.
Number 2026
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it was possible to ask if HB 363
move from the House State Affairs Committee with individual
recommendations. She also said she would have to leave along with
Representative Willis.
CHAIR JAMES said she would rather not right now, but maybe at the
next meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON apologized for having to leave.
CHAIR JAMES wondered if there was a quorum and asked
Representatives Willis and Robinson where they were going.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said to a meeting with the Governor.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Robinson to ask the Governor to
not interrupt a committee meeting again in the future.
CHAIR JAMES announced to the teleconference participants that
Representatives Ivan, Porter, Ogan and James were present.
HJR 49 - DEDICATED HIGHWAY FUND
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HJR 49.
CHAIR JAMES called on Barbara Cotting, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Jeannette James to present the sponsor statement.
Number 2191
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Jeannette
James, said there was a wide amount of support for HJR 49. She
said this resolution differed from similar ones in that it utilized
only state taxes on motor vehicle fuel, and that the legislature
may appropriate money from the fund only for the maintenance of
roads and highways. She said it did not deal with aircraft and
watercraft, and enforcement of motor vehicle laws as other attempts
had done. Ms. Cotting said the amendment was an attempt to tighten
the resolution. She further said the Department of Transportation,
truckers, and the tourist industry supported HJR 49. There was
information available if the committee members wanted describing
the research behind the resolution and what other states had done.
CHAIR JAMES announced to Robert Gigler in Anchorage that the House
State Affairs Committee would not be hearing HB 363 today in the
event he needed to leave.
CHAIR JAMES referred the committee members to the amendment and
read, "from state taxes on fuel used for the propulsion of highway
or road use motor vehicle."
TAPE 96-9, SIDE A
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN asked how a road was defined in HJR 49.
He cited in rural Alaska there were many dirt and gravel roads.
Number 00029
CHAIR JAMES said anyplace a road tax was paid. She cited a federal
definition that mentioned a maintained road.
Number 0076
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER enquired about the previous attempt and the
problems.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Sam Kito III, to
answer Representative Porter's question.
Number 0102
SAM KITO III, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
said the previous dedicated fund resolution contained too many
components and too many interests which created problems. He said
it was too big of a bill.
CHAIR JAMES asked about licensing fees.
MR. KITO III responded licensing fees were included as well as
funding provisions.
Number 0182
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he did not understand the fiscal note and
wondered if it would increase the appropriations for road
maintenance.
Number 0205
CHAIR JAMES replied, no, because the amount of motor vehicle tax
received was $24 million to $25 million and the state was spending
$75 million in road maintenance. She further said there was a road
tax being proposed, and the public was willing to pay a higher tax
if they knew it went into a fund. Therefore, HJR 49 would
guarantee a certain level of funding and would not suffer with the
declining budget.
Number 0295
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if this was a cog in the wheel of the
long range fiscal plan.
Number 0305
CHAIR JAMES replied it could be. She read the following definition
of a highway found in a statute.
"`highway' means the entire width between the boundary lines of
every way that is publicly maintained when a part of it is open to
the public for purposes of vehicular travel, including but not
limited to every street and the Alaska state marine highway system
but not vehicular ways or areas."
Number 0349
MR. KITO III added the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities was very interested in the concept of a dedicated fund
because it ensured a revenue stream for maintenance. This, he
alleged, was valuable to guarantee the state road system was
adequately maintained.
Number 0380
CHAIR JAMES said there was support for a similar resolution for
boat and aircraft taxes. She said she did not want to include them
to keep HJR 49 focused in-order-to pass.
Number 0434
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned the 90/10 federal government rebate
split for road maintenance in Alaska and wondered how HJR 49 would
affect it.
Number 0475
MR. KITO III said HJR 49 would demonstrate to the federal
government the state was trying to maintain our existing highway
system. The split he cited was between $6 to $7 for every tax
dollar put into the fund. He cited California put in $1 and
received 80 cents and they wanted to get their dollar back. He
said Alaska needed to justify that $7 for every $1 put in the fund
to other states for support. He cited seven alternatives were
released in a report by the General Accounting Office for
redistribution of the federal highway trust revenues to the states.
He said in the alternatives the state of Alaska went from $230
million to $89 million in the best case scenario. In the worst
case scenario, he stated, Alaska went from $230 million to $37
million. He further said Congress did not have to choose one of
the alternatives, but they would take it under advisement.
Therefore, he said in six years or so the state could see a serious
decrease in federal dollars. He also said at this point the
department did not collect enough tax revenue to develop a state
program if the federal funding was lost.
Number 0598
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied the federal government would probably
look more favorable towards Alaska by adopting HJR 49.
Number 0624
MR. KITO III responded, yes. He said any indication that the state
was working towards stabilizing a maintenance fund for the highways
would look favorably compared to other states.
Number 0639
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if other states that contributed to
a federal highway fund used motor fuel taxes or general funds.
Number 0666
MR. KITO III cited two states and the District of Columbia that did
not have a dedicated fund for transportation. He said the state of
Texas did not have a fund dedicated for transportation, but for
every penney raised the state increased the revenue by $200
million. He said he did not know how the money was allocated to
transportation, but the revenue generated was enough to adequately
fund the transportation system. He further stated most states had
a constitutional provision or a statute that set aside a separate
account for maintenance and operation of the highways.
Number 0715
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if the state would contribute to the
fund through a general appropriation.
Number 0723
MR. KITO III said everybody in the U.S. paid a federal fuel tax,
that went back into the federal highway trust fund then
subsequently reallocated. Therefore, the state of Alaska was not
paying money directly, but paying through the usage of the fuel.
Number 0742
CHAIR JAMES announced to the audience the House State Affairs
Committee would not be hearing HB 368 today.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Robert Eakman.
Number 0779
ROBERT EAKMAN, General Manager, Alaska Independent Truckers
Association, announced his support of HJR 49. He wondered about
the definition of the word "maintenance" in the resolution. Mr.
Eakman wondered if fixing pot holes or tearing up roads and
replacing with better material, for example, were included in the
definition. He cited roads were surfaced very recently in
Anchorage that needed repairing again due to ruts creating a
hazard.
Number 0848
MR. KITO III replied the maintenance that would be covered in HJR
49 would include filling of pot holes and minor resurfacing, for
example. He also said the revenue coming in from the bill would
not increase the current budget so the department would not be able
to do more until the tax revenue increased.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Jack Wiegel.
Number 0895
JACK WIEGEL, President, Alaska Independent Trucking Association,
said he had been a resident of Alaska for 25 years. He stated his
support for HJR 49 and alleged it would create jobs. He said it
would be a direct injection of dollars into the economy as well as
promote safety on the highways.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Ted Deboer.
Number 0935
TED DEBOER, Alaska Operations Manager, Totem Ocean Trailer Express,
stated his full support for HJR 49. He alleged it would solve a
lot of the highway problems, as well as promote safety.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Duane Saulnier.
Number 0969
DUANE SAULNIER stated his support for HJR 49. He further said he
would like to see some up-keep on the roads.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Blaine Ghan.
Number 0990
BLAINE GHAN, Lynden Transport, said his company strongly supported
HJR 49. He said the wording was critical. He said the dedication
of a highway maintenance fund would be very beneficial to the
highway system for the public and the industry. In conclusion, he
said, provided the wording was correct, his company was in full
support.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Kym Swift.
Number 1031
KYM SWIFT, said she did not understand why HJR 49 was before the
legislature this year. She said the Administration alleged the
resolution would not increase maintenance. She wondered why the
money was being taken off the table when the state was facing a
$500 million fiscal gap. She further said the framers of the
constitution prohibited this for logical reasons because it made it
hard to adopt in changing economic times which Alaska was about to
face. She stated 25 states in the U.S. had dedicated education
funds and Alaska should look at that before a highway maintenance
fund.
Number 1099
CHAIR JAMES reiterated the amendment before the committee to HJR 49
was to tighten the language to specifically refer to motor
vehicles.
Number 1122
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt the amendment. Hearing no
objection it was so adopted.
Number 1152
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that HJR 49 move from the committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing
no objection, it was so moved from the House State Affairs
Committee.
Number 1169
CHAIR JAMES explained HJR 51 by Representative Joe Green, proposed
an amendment to the constitution of the state of Alaska related to
limited entry for sport, fish, guides, and allied professions. She
announced she wanted to waive this resolution from the House State
Affairs Committee to the next committee of referral - the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
Number 1197
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN wondered where his copy of HJR 51 was.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied we did not have a copy before us.
CHAIR JAMES said it was a one page bill if Representative Ivan
wanted to look at it.
Number 1210
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said Representative Austerman, Chair of the
House Special Committee on Fisheries, also proposed a bill of
similar nature so the special committee was probably the best place
to try and resolve into a single bill. He further said the bill
would go to the Judiciary Committee of which two members of the
House State Affairs Committee were also members. He said to
relieve Chair James of a back-log this was an expedient move.
Number 1251
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ivan if he was comfortable with
moving HJR 51 to the next committee.
Number 1256
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he was very interested in HJR 51.
CHAIR JAMES again asked if he would be comfortable moving the
resolution to the next committee because he was not a member of any
of the referred committees.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied he was not trying to hold the bill and
requested to hear it to understand the resolution.
Number 1273
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied the resolution established a limit on
sport guiding to prevent a proliferation of guides. He stated the
sport guide community favored the bill.
Number 1314
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he now saw the intent of the resolution
and would take a look at it, and further said he felt comfortable
enough to let it go to the next committee of referral.
Number 1320
CHAIR JAMES recommended Representative Ivan take his time, but to
get back to her before the floor session on Friday.
Number 1352
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee at 9:55
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|