02/18/2004 07:02 AM House W&M
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
February 18, 2004
7:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Chair
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Vice Chair
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Carl Moses
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the Alaska permanent fund and to payments to certain
state residents from the Alaska permanent fund; and providing
for an effective date for the amendments.
- MOVED CSHJR 31(W&M) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 31
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND
REPRESENTATIVE(S): HOLM
01/02/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) W&M, STA, JUD, FIN
01/23/04 (H) W&M AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/23/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/23/04 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
02/04/04 (H) W&M AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/04/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/04 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
02/18/04 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, explained an amendment to the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 31, and answered
questions.
ROGER GAY
Big Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 31.
STEVEN PORTER, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained fiscal notes related to HJR 31.
JOHN MALLONEE, Acting Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained fiscal notes related to HJR 31.
SHARON BARTON, Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained fiscal notes related to HJR 31.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR MIKE HAWKER called the House Special Committee on Ways and
Means meeting to order at 7:02 a.m. Representatives Hawker,
Samuels, Weyhrauch, Wilson, Moses, and Ogg were present at the
call to order.
HJR 31-CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND
Number 0032
CHAIR HAWKER announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the Alaska
permanent fund and to payments to certain state residents from
the Alaska permanent fund; and providing for an effective date
for the amendments. He noted that Version U was before the
committee, having been adopted for discussion purposes at the
last meeting.
Number 0200
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HJR 31, explained his intention to offer an amendment to the
proposed committee substitute (CS).
Number 0228
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt the aforementioned
amendment as Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation
provided, some formatting changes made]:
Pg.2, line 23, insert new paragraph (c) to read:
(c) Section 15 of Article IX as it read on June
30, 2004, applies to appropriations for fiscal year
2005. Notwithstanding Section 15(b) of Article IX,
appropriations from the permanent fund may not exceed
the following amounts for the following fiscal years:
(1) fiscal year 2006 - five percent of the
market value of the fund on June 30, 2005;
(2) fiscal year 2007 - five percent of the
average of the market values of the fund on June 30,
2005, and June 30, 2006;
(3) fiscal year 2008 - five percent of the
average of the market values of the fun [sic] on June
30, 2005, June 30, 2006, and June 30, 2007;
(4) fiscal year 2009 - five percent of the
average of the market values of the fund on June 30,
2005, June 30, 2006, June 30, 2007, and June 30, 2008;
(5) fiscal year 2010 - five percent of the
average of the market values of the fund on June 30,
2005, June 30, 2006, June 30, 2007 June 30, 2008, and
June 30, 2009.
CHAIR HAWKER objected to Amendment 1 for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained that Amendment 1 is a transitional
clause amendment - there is no "look back provision" - and it
"starts from the time that the fund is left -- that will be the
balance for the five-year [percent of market value] (POMV)."
CHAIR HAWKER asked Representative Holm what his original concern
was.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM answered, "The balance at 5 percent would be
based upon the five proceeding years, which would be the $27
billion to $28 billion it is today, plus the year before this,
and what we're saying [is] it just goes forward for the time
it's left and, eventually, it evens itself out."
Number 0334
CHAIR HAWKER asked if his understanding is correct, "That the
language is intended, that as we go forward with this newly
established balance level, we phase in every year doing an
average until we reach the five-year look back."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that when the bill was previously
discussed the price of oil was $32 a barrel, so 5 percent, using
the POMV methodology, was $800 million. She inquired if that
number is still the same.
Number 0420
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained that the amount changes depending
on how much is left over. He said in the Version U of the bill
the amount is capped at $20,000. He continued:
If you take the number of people that would qualify,
and you multiply that times $20,000, and you take that
amount of money out of the corpus of the fund, and the
earnings, -- so it starts with one base. Then, from
that point forward we don't know what the numbers are
going to be at this point because it keeps growing at
[the] oil price.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she understood, but responded that
last time the amount was specific.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that [the amount] has changed because
the size of the permanent fund left is unknown. The only number
known is the $20,000 payout. He said it was the reverse of what
it used to be.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for further clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM replied that if there were $17 billion it
could be computed.
CHAIR HAWKER explained that the CS before the committee reversed
the calculation mechanism for the distribution. The
distribution now is sum certain and the residual, whatever that
might be, is left in the fund. He said it is a significant
change in the methodology.
Number 0615
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON requested further discussion to clarify
the issue for people listening online.
CHAIR HAWKER asked if there was any further discussion of
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Holm if the
amendment maintains the lock-in for who is eligible to receive
the payout, or if people would become eligible every year.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that [Amendment 1] has no bearing on
who is eligible.
Number 0700
CHAIR HAWKER removed his objection to Amendment 1. He asked
whether there was any further objection to adopting Amendment 1.
Hearing none, it was so ordered.
Number 0705
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
[original punctuation provided, some formatting changes made]:
BILL ID: HJR 31
00 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31
01 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to the Alaska
02 permanent fund, education fund, and to payments
to certain state residents from the Alaska permanent
03 fund; and providing for an effective date for the
amendments.
04 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
ALASKA:
* Section 1. Article IX, sec. 15, Constitution of
the State of Alaska is amended to read:
Section 15. (a) At least twenty per cent of all
mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale
proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments and
bonuses received by the State shall be placed in a
permanent fund, the principal of which shall be used
only for those income-producing investments
specifically designated by law as eligible for
permanent fund investments. Up to five percent of
market value of the permanent fund may be deposited in
the general fund and may be used for any public
purpose excepting any program that provides dividends
or other payments to all State residents.
(b) At least five per cent of all mineral lease
rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal
mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received
by the State shall be placed in an education fund, the
principal of which shall be used only for those
income-producing investments specifically designated
by law as eligible for permanent fund investments. The
fund shall be managed by the by the managers of the
permanent fund as provided by law. Up to five percent
of market value of the education fund may only be
expended as follows: one third to the University of
Alaska for instruction and or scholarships and two
thirds to the Department of Education for primary and
secondary education.
01 * Sec. 2. Article XV, Constitution of the State
of Alaska, is amended by adding a new
14 02 section to read: .
[UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW].
01 * Sec. 2. Article XV, Constitution of the State
of Alaska, is amended by adding a new
02 section to read:
03 Section 30. Payments From the Alaska Permanent
Fund and Effective
04 Date. (a) Notwithstanding Section 15 of Article
IX, each individual
who is eligible
05 under State statute to receive a permanent fund
dividend for the year 2004 shall
06 receive from the State a payment in addition to
that dividend. All provisions of statute
07 and regulation that are both applicable to
permanent fund dividends for 2004 and in
08 effect on January 1, 2004, apply to payments
under this subsection except provisions
09 that relate to the amount of the dividend and the
date the dividend is paid. The
10 balance of the principal of the Alaska permanent
fund on the effective date of this
11 section, less twenty one[fifteen] billion
dollars, shall be used for payments under this
section. The
12 balance, after the twenty one [fifteen] billion
dollar deduction is made, shall be divided equally
13 among all eligible individuals so that each
eligible individual receives an equal
14 payment, rounded to the nearest cent.
15 (b) Notwithstanding Section 15 of Article IX,
upon effect of Section 30 (a) of
16 this amendment, six billion dollars shall be
transferred from the permanent
17 fund (Section 15(a) of Article IX) and deposited
in the education fund
18 Section 15(b) of Article IX.
19 (c) [(b)] The 2004 amendment that amends Section
15 of Article IX and adds this
20 section to this article takes effect on the day
after certification of the election
21 returns for the 2004 general election.
22 * Sec. 3. The amendments proposed by this
resolution shall be placed before the
23 voters of the state at the next general election
in conformity with art. XIII, sec. 1,
24 Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the
election laws of the state.
Number 0720
CHAIR HAWKER objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG explained that [Amendment 2] creates two
sections in Section 15; a permanent fund, with changes from 25
percent to 20 percent in the amount of money going into the
permanent fund, and a new section, (b), an education endowment,
which would collect 5 percent of the lease royalties on an
annual basis. He added that [Amendment 2] would transfer $6
billion from the permanent fund to the education endowment, and
would also leave $21 billion in the fund. The payout would be
$10,000 rather than $20,000, he said.
Number 0828
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM responded that he did not agree with
Representative Ogg's amendment for several reasons. One of the
issues is the problem of "dedication of funds" creating
difficulties for state governments. Another issue is whether
$10,000 rather than $20,000 is enough to entice people to give
up the dividend. He said [$10,000] would be equal to a 10-year
buyout, rather than a 20-year buyout. Another reason for the
$20,000 is to allow enough capital to come back to Alaska and
make life-altering changes for people, he added. For those,
reasons, he opined, HJR 31 would work better in its present
form. He said he appreciated Representative Ogg's ideas, but
didn't think they would work, and he was fearful of setting up a
program which the government couldn't fund in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Representative Ogg to explain page
2, lines 15-18.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG responded, "What that says is when this bill
is enacted, if it is enacted as a constitutional amendment,
you're not able to take monies out of the permanent fund except
by particular formula under 15(a) - the POMV formula - and those
lines there say, notwithstanding that." He said it creates an
enactment to remove $6 million for an education fund.
Number 1107
REPRESENTATIVE OGG, in response to Representative Holm's
comments, said he didn't know what the proper amount was to buy
people out, but that he was very interested in creating an
educational endowment. He reflected that Representative Holm
did raise an interesting point on the unconstitutional
designation of funds. He referred to a legal analysis [Legal
Services Memorandum, from Tamara Brandt Cook, February 11, 2004]
requested by Representative Con Bunde, and questioned what would
entail a dramatic change that would require a constitutional
convention, as opposed to just making a revision [to the
constitution]. He quoted from page 3 of the Memorandum:
The complication factor here, of course, is that the
original amendment to the state constitution under
which the permanent fund was established was, itself,
a significant restriction on the legislative power of
appropriation.
Number 1220
REPRESENTATIVE OGG added that this issue certainly hasn't been
challenged, but legal analysis believes that there are
persuasive arguments that creating the fund, in the first place,
was a restriction on the power of appropriation, and it may be
of such a magnitude that it would have required a constitutional
convention instead of just a revision. He said he is
reconsidering his amendment because of the "dedication of funds"
point made by the sponsor of the bill. He queried the sponsor
about the legal analysis of putting to the voters the power of
appropriation by the adoption of the constitutional amendment.
Is that, in itself, an unconstitutional designation of funds,
and a restriction on the power of the legislature, he asked. He
said he didn't have an answer to that question and, having read
the legal opinion, concluded it may be problematic for HJR 31
and put into question the whole permanent fund itself. Having
said that, Representative Ogg withdrew [Amendment 2].
Number 1430
CHAIR HAWKER thanked Representative Ogg for his comments and
stated that he has a great interest in the larger constitutional
issue. He commented on the process of dealing with HJR 31, the
fact that [House Judiciary Standing Committee] would deal with
the legal ramifications of the bill, and the adequate due
diligence process as the bill moves forward.
Number 1538
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH added his appreciation for the
discussion of Amendment 2. He mentioned that he is viewing HJR
31 from a [House Special Committee on Ways and Means] viewpoint
to analyze how to provide fiscal revenues to the state of
Alaska. He said that it appears, with a $27 billion permanent
fund, [the legislature] has become frozen in the ability to deal
with the fiscal problem. He said, "What we've done is we've set
in our constitution a permanent fund, and we've given ourselves
a permanent headache on how to deal with money distribution to
the public and for money distribution to the state."
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH stated that education is a preeminent
concern of his. Balanced against that is the concern that
putting an education endowment into the constitution would lead
to a future debate similar to the one now regarding the
permanent fund. He noted that, in the future, there could be a
top-heavy amount of money in education, but all other functions
of government could be suffering: the court system, the law
enforcement branch, environmental protection, et cetera.
"Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon the legislature to have
the ability to look at the corporation resources, as it stands,
and make those both substantive and political decisions at a
time and in the context ...." He concluded by saying he hopes
Representative Ogg will bring the same debate back at a future
date.
Number 1758
REPRESENTATIVE OGG replied he appreciates Representative
Weyhrauch's comments, and he explained the reasoning behind
withdrawing his amendment. He added that his intention was to
provide a fiscal solution.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM also stated his appreciation for
Representative Ogg's amendment and added his support to finding
a solution to education's dilemma soon. He added that this bill
is not the vehicle to fix the problem of funding education, but
it could free up the dollars so that the state could do its
appropriate business.
Number 1932
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON added that she hopes Representative Ogg
continues "in that vein" in order to get answers to questions
about [education funding]. She said that throughout the state
there is concern about two things, the permanent fund dividend,
and education. She emphasized that the majority of the people
feel that [the legislature] is not doing a good enough job
[funding education] and it needs to be pursued. She encouraged
Representative Ogg to continue [his pursuit of funding
education.]
REPRESENTATIVE OGG thanked the committee and joked that he felt
much better for having withdrawn [his amendment].
Number 2100
ROGER GAY, spoke about the $20,000 payout. He said that amount
was supposed to equal permanent fund dividends for 20 years, but
argued that there is a need to look at what the next 20 years of
future checks would be, not the last 20 years. He stated he
believes the permanent fund checks have a beneficial effect on
the economy of Alaska. He questioned how to offset the loss of
the boost to the economy if the program is discontinued.
MR. GAY opined that with the fund at $28 billion, the fund no
longer needs to be increased by the 25 percent yearly mineral
lease contribution. He said the 25 percent could be used to
start a new fund to support state government - a long-term fix.
In 20 years the state of Alaska could have a second fund of its
own to be used for whatever purposes it chooses. He emphasized
he does not think the permanent fund, as it is today, should be
abandoned. He suggested the permanent fund be changed to "The
People's Fund, and that a new fund be established called a
"Trust Fund," because, "We should not trust the government." He
concluded by saying the money the people spend is none of the
legislature's business and the current permanent fund should
remain.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER thanked Mr. Gay for his testimony and
summed up the discussion thus far. He mentioned that
Representative Holm has provided a stack of e-mails for the
committee's information.
Number 2532
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he would appreciate it if the e-mails
were included in the members' packets. He said he hoped, in the
process, the committee would come up with a solution the state
could live with. He applauded the debate process as being good
for the state of Alaska. He pointed out, "We have the
opportunity to make this state, on a solid financial basis, work
properly."
CHAIR HAWKER announced that public testimony was concluded. He
stated that the following fiscal notes had been received:
Department of Education, Department of Revenue, Department of
Labor and Workforce Development, and Alaska Court System. The
committee is waiting for a fiscal note from the Department of
Corrections, he added.
Number 2737
STEVE PORTER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Revenue, explained the department's two fiscal
notes. The first one is from the Child Support Enforcement
Division (CSED) which would receive a substantial impact from
this bill, he said. In the CSED there are about $500 million of
arrearages in child support payments, and a single event such as
a $20,000 payout, with the garnishments from PFD's, would wipe
out about half [of the arrearages], or $240 million. He
explained there would also be a short-term benefit to federal
incentives the first year, followed by a negative impact of
about $1.7 million the following years because of no opportunity
to garnish the PFD's.
CHAIR HAWKER asked about the outyears of decline and wondered if
this calculation took into account the front-end loading of over
$240 million in payments to recipients of child support.
MR. PORTER replied that it would depend on the age of the child.
If a child has reached the age of majority and the amount of
money is just owed to the state, then the case would be closed
out. If there is on-going child support, it would bring that
case current. [The department] can't garnish into the future,
he added. He said that the problem is that federal incentive
programs are based on "annual basis" and the gains in '05 can't
be carried forward into '06, '07, and '08.
Number 3030
JOHN MALLONEE, Acting Director, Child Support Enforcement
Division, Department of Revenue, stated that Mr. Porter was
correct in that a lot of the cases would be paid off at one
settlement because there are no on-going child support payments
to be charged. He said it was hard to determine how many cases
would fall into each category. He guessed that about 60 percent
of the cases would probably be on-going and 40 percent of the
cases would close out. He said that even $20,000 would not
close out some cases which are as large as $60,000 to $200,000
in arrears. He explained that the larger cases would have
continued to collect money if there was a yearly PFD, which
would have helped incentives. The incentive measure for arrears
happens to be the number of cases in which there was at least a
collection, he added.
CHAIR HAWKER said it sounds like beneficiaries would be
receiving a great up-front benefit, but, if this resolution were
to pass, it would not put the CSED out of business.
MR. MALLONEE answered that it wouldn't.
CHAIR HAWKER suggested CSED would receive support from the
legislature to pursue those difficult cases.
Number 3229
MR. PORTER spoke about the fiscal note from the Permanent Fund
Dividend Division (PFDD). He said there would no longer be a
PFDD if this bill passed. The initial gain in '05 would be
close to $1 million; followed by '06, '07, and '08 recapturing
the $5.2 spent managing the permanent fund dividend. There
would be a number of unresolved issues, which would have to be
transferred to another organization within the department or to
another department. For example, individuals, when they reach
the age of 18, can apply for missed dividends. Appeals and
collections is an example of an area which will be hanging on,
he added.
Number 3414
SHARON BARTON, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue, added that the fiscal note projects how
the PFDD would be phased out. She offered to answer questions.
CHAIR HAWKER noted the presence of other fiscal notes. The
Department of Education and Early Development, Student Loan
Program Collection fiscal note indicates up front some very
significant loan collections and then reduced collections into
the future, he explained. The Alaska Court System fiscal note
indicates some affect on fines and forfeitures, but the most
significant item is having to find a new database from which to
pick jurors. The Department of Labor has a zero fiscal note, he
reported, and Division of Elections fiscal note indicates a
small cost to put the resolution on the election ballot.
Number 3637
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if the Department of Health and Social
Services (HESS) has a fiscal note.
CHAIR HAWKER answered that [the committee] is waiting for a
fiscal note from HESS and from the Department of Corrections.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if there was a fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety.
CHAIR HAWKER answered that [the committee] is waiting for that
fiscal note, also.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked when [the committee] would be
receiving those fiscal notes and if it could wait for the bill
to go the House State Affairs Standing Committee to deal with
them.
Number 3732
CHAIR HAWKER stated that the fiscal notes were, at best, large
estimates and he was willing to allow the bill to move on to the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
Number 3830
REPRESENTATIVE OGG responded to the flavor of testimony in some
of the e-mails regarding this bill. He said there is a sense
that people do better with their money than the state does, and
he said he would like to speak, from a historical perspective,
to that issue. "Since the development of oil in the state, he
said, there has been $52 billion in revenue to the state
government. We now have a permanent fund of $28 billion the
legislature managed to save. If you throw in the constitutional
budget reserve, that's almost 60 percent of the money from the
oil revenue, still in hand." He called that, "astounding fiscal
management by the state of Alaska and the people of Alaska." He
added that it was interesting to note in the excess earnings
[reserve] account, the legislature had the ability to spend
about $14 billion, but put it into that [account] and was not
mandated by the constitution to do so. He stated, that not only
has [the legislature] set aside a savings account, they also
have acted in a responsible manner. He concluded by saying,
over the period of time of the permanent fund, the legislature
has handed out about $12 billion to the citizens of the state.
He emphasized that the legislature has been very responsible and
has done very well.
Number 4053
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON added her comments about the perceptions
of people regarding the money in the earnings reserve account.
She said [the legislature], at any time, could have by a simple
majority vote, taken money out of the account. Instead, they
acted responsibly and used the money only to pay permanent fund
dividends or to increase the value of the account. She stated
her concern about the perception of irresponsibility on the part
of the legislature, but added that that was not at all true.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH mentioned the Conference of Alaskans
where people clamored for money for state services, broad-based
revenue sources, constitutionalization of the permanent fund,
and payout of the permanent fund. He noted that [Alaska] is at
a critical time in the state's fiscal history. He suggested the
committee move the bill forward and let the people analyze it in
the public forum of debate.
Number 4304
CHAIR HAWKER reminded listeners that the committee process is an
on-going process, and the movement of a bill from a committee is
part of a process. It does not indicate that the individual
committee members will endorse or support the bill, ultimately,
when it gets to the floor of the body. He said there may be
individual recommendations on the bill, but that he concurs with
Representative Weyhrauch that this bill merits further debate
that addresses the question, "What role shall the permanent fund
play in the future fiscal policy of the state of Alaska?" He
suggested moving [HJR 31] on to the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked Representative Holm if the bill
mentions anything about putting the payout for children under 18
in an escrow account so it would be theirs when they turn 18.
He noted several e-mails in the packet that advocate for that
idea.
Number 4444
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM replied that the idea was discussed, but
there was never an agreement on the method for the state to
reserve the payouts for minors. He stated, "It's not our
business how people spend their money." Then he posed the
question, "How beneficial would it be to a family to have a
life-altering situation, financially, so they could buy a home?"
Whether or not the monies are transferred to the children in
value as a capital asset or given to them in cash when they are
18, he said he didn't know which way was the best. He concluded
it was a good issue for debate.
Number 4655
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH moved to report CSHJR 31, Version 23-
LS1282\U out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR
31(W&M) was reported out of House Special Committee on Ways and
Means.
TAPE 04-6, SIDE B
Number 4700
CHAIR HAWKER thanked Representative Holm and his staff for their
work on the bill. He concluded the meeting with announcements
for next week.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means meeting was adjourned at
8:53 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|