Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/09/2004 08:12 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
[The following is a verbatim transcript.]
SJR 18-CONST. AM: PF APPROPS/INFLATION-PROOFING
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS: Okay, next we're going to move on to our
second item, which is CSSJR 18[STA]. We're looking at version
[H]. A little bit of history on this bill - we have had public
hearings across the state. We had public hearings this summer in
Fairbanks; we had public hearings in Kenai, in Mat-Su and in
Anchorage. Today is our last opportunity for public hearings on
this particular bill and then for any questions from the members
that are present. Do we have anyone who would like to testify
today on CSSJR 18? I see Mr. Storer is here from the [Alaska]
Permanent Fund [Corporation] and I think the members pretty much
understand what the proposal is here. Is there anything that you
would wish to add to what you guys have testified on already
four times across the state?
MR. ROBERT STORER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PERMANENT FUND
CORPORATION: Thank you Mr. Chair. We're prepared to answer any
questions that you may have.
CHAIR SEEKINS: We'll hold you to stand by for any questions. Is
there anyone on-line that would like to testify on this bill?
[No response.] Anyone in the audience that would like to testify
on CSSJR 18? [No response.] Mr. Storer, perhaps you could take
the chair in case we do have any questions from members of the
committee? Anyone signed up Mr. Hove? [No one signed up.] At
this point, we're going to close public testimony on this CS for
SJR 18. Public testimony is closed. Questions from the members -
any questions, comments? Here's our opportunity to ask the
expert as to what the formula that they originated from the
trustees of the permanent fund is in this resolution that we're
considering today. Senator Therriault?
SENATOR THERRIAULT: Mr. Storer, I know one of the concerns that
has come up is that with the allowable up to five percent draw,
there could be some erosion of the principal in a down
investment market or climate. I know that you have run some
models historically looking back to see [indisc.] toss around
some different ideas of how we could prevent that from
happening. I'm wondering if you could just go over that?
MR. STORER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Bob Storer, the Executive
Director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. Senator
Therriault, I have handouts from two views if I could ask that
those be distributed? We take the longer term view so the first
thing we looked at was what was the real rate of return based on
a 10-year rolling average of the history of the fund. And if you
look at that, you'll see that in all time periods - I should
describe the chart - zero and above is the excess return -
earnings of the fund above inflation so zero and below would
incorporate inflation. This is zero and above is the real rate
of return of the permanent fund. And then we've driven a red
line through the 5 percent real rate of return because, of
course, that's our proposed constitutional amendment.
You'll see on a rolling 10-year period, during all time frames,
we have been able to achieve a 5 percent real rate of return and
that includes the most recent period where we experienced not
only very high rates of return in the bull market but a 3-year
bear market as well. In fact, we earned a 5.3 percent real rate
of return for that 10-year period and you'll see it's trending
back and we've extrapolated what we think we'll earn through
this whole fiscal year.
So that's one way of looking at it. But many people have said
well what happens, you've got - it's on a rolling 5-year rate of
return, so what happens if you look at a 5-year rolling rate of
return perspective and you'll see I've also provided a graph for
you on that as well. And you'll note that in virtually all
periods we have earned an excess rate of return of 5 percent
real, with the exception of most recent history when we had the
3-year bear market and you'll see that over those 5-year
observations most recently, we still were able to achieve a real
rate of return, albeit below 5 percent, slightly above probably
about 1 percent, etcetera. Now it's trending upwards because the
returns have been so good over that period. This chart
highlights what I believe is the importance of the POMV, which
is limiting or creating the discipline to not overspend in the
good years. If you look at that chart, by not overspending, and
the legislature did not, they created the cushion, the reserves
that actually would allow us to meet, or allow decision makers
to meet, the payments in the down years. So I think this chart
illustrates, in my mind, the importance of the discipline in the
good years to create a reserve for the down years.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Go ahead Senator Therriault.
SENATOR THERRIAULT: Just so I can make sure I understand this -
so the zero line incorporates covering inflation?
MR. STORER: Correct.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Senator French?
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH: Mr. Storer, I had a conversation with Mr.
Bartholomew this summer and I explained my chief reservation
about this proposal and that is in the same area that I think
Senator Therriault was just asking about and that is the
inflation proofing. The quarterly report you guys mailed out to
me at my home late in the summer, early September, showed that
the annualized 5-year return for the years ending June 30, 2003,
that is going back 5 years from there, the total fund returned
3.39 percent. That's the kind of scenario I guess that most - at
least I am concerned about, that we could go into a time that
we're not making a lot of money and we're taking this 5 percent
out and you start to claw into the fund. I think that really
sort of highlights one of the difficulties in the proposal, and
that is that if you really believe you can take out 5 percent
regularly, after inflation proofing, and if one of the chief
selling points of the model is that it provides a predictable
payout, that is somewhat undercut by the idea that, well, you
don't have to take that 5 percent in bad years. I think that's
one of the faults, if you will, in the premise of the POMV is
that you're going to have this predictable 5 percent payout
except in bad years when you don't do that. Once I think you go
to telling folks you're going to have a 5 percent payout, it's
going to be very, very difficult to take something less than 5
percent. So I guess my concern is that in bad years, in years
where you get a 3.39 percent annualized return, you haven't made
your 5 percent and you haven't inflation proofed either. That
strikes me as clawing into the principal of the fund.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Let me ask a couple of questions so that we can
take a look at this when we talk about this. You know I've been
a used car salesman for a long time. What's the present market
value of the fund, roughly?
MR. STORER: It's in excess of $27 billion right now.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Okay, so we've got 27 billion. What's the
principal of the fund?
MR. STORER: That's - I was afraid you were going to ask me that.
I've been traveling so much but I think it's about $22.5
billion.
CHAIR SEEKINS: So with that in mind, we've got $4.5 billion in
market value that exceeds the current principal value of the
fund?
MR. STORER: Um-hum.
CHAIR SEEKINS: So we'd have to have a couple of really bad years
before we started eating into the principal if we started now
with a 5 percent payout - is that correct?
MR. STORER: That is correct.
CHAIR SEEKINS: So there's a cushion already there that exists
because of the discipline of the legislature in the past and so
we should not confuse market value as principal - am I correct
there Mr. Storer?
MR. STORER: I think that's an important issue. I think you've -
in my mind, I'd like to address a couple of things there.
Everywhere I've seen in the United States over the last - as a
result of the bear market, is everyone got caught overspending.
Not everyone, but I can cite you example after example of
overspending in the good years - they got caught up in the bull
market mania. I believe the best way - this is what I believe
personally, I believe it strongly - the best way to protect the
principal is to create the discipline not to overspend. If I add
some responses to Senator French's comments, I've thought about
that a lot over the summer because I know it's important not
just to you but to many people, and my response has always been
as it relates to the POMV, and again I send you to the 10-year
period, which says that in fact, we have been able to achieve
that goal but we well may not in the future.
The problem exists under the current system as well and we can't
forget that. So then it becomes each system has a set of
decisions or parameters around it based on the statutes, or the
guidelines, or what matters. You are correct, if decision makers
wished in a low real rate of return period to distribute 5
percent, we say the stability, the predictability - it's there
or it's not there. Under the current system, and you know we
have varying scenarios, we had a real rate of return there -
what happens if we get a negative real rate of return? Under the
current system, depending, you have the same problems but you
can also hit that principal and theoretically go several years
without any payment at all. Then you've got this 22 - 27 billion
dollar fund that does nothing until the market value goes back
above. And so it's a decision. It's an important decision. One
gives you the flexibility. The other, in a really bad scenario,
you wait or you change the Constitution to eliminate principal
then. So the problem doesn't go away in either way. It just
manifests itself in a slightly different way.
CHAIR SEEKINS: And so, I see - as you know I was on the
Permanent Fund Board of Trustees and I can see all kinds of
different scenarios where even the current system could be used
to actually spend into the principal by selling losers and other
different ways to be able to do that to produce revenue into -
well it wouldn't produce revenue but we could actually spend
into the principal at this time. Is that correct?
MR. STORER: If you - on the current, you can take income - if
realized income is available you can distribute that. So if you
had realized income and then unrealized losses, you could pay
out and then the value of the fund would be below principal, as
an example.
CHAIR SEEKINS: What do we do with rents and royalties? Where do
we classify those?
MR. STORER: Those are realized income.
CHAIR SEEKINS: So we could be losing in the market and not sell
it because that's unrealized losses.
MR. STORER: That is correct.
CHAIR SEEKINS: And be bringing in rents and royalties that we
call realized income and that goes to distribution even though
we're losing our shirt in the markets?
MR. STORER: Under the current system that's correct, Mr.
Chairman. And the other question in all of this is, under the
current system is would inflation proofing continue or not. It
always has in the past through the statutory process.
CHAIR SEEKINS: I always ask the question on that - if I was
looking at my own family, you know, the question I ask is would
I inflation proof it if I couldn't feed my kids? Easy decision
but if I look at this then, if I understand my math was wrong as
I look at it, $27 billion market fund - market value, $22.5
[billion] principal - that's $4.5 billion between principal and
market value. If we were taking 5 percent of that market value
now, it would take us three years to get down to principal?
MR. STORER: If we didn't earn anything.
CHAIR SEEKINS: If we didn't earn anything, so there's a cushion
that's there and I don't think a lot of people in the state
understand that that cushion exists because they only think in
terms of the market value, not the principal value.
MR. STORER: At one time, Mr. Chair, 25 percent of the fund was
either realized income or unrealized gains, in about 1999, early
2000.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Okay. Senator French?
SENATOR FRENCH: But my understanding is when you enact the POMV,
you eradicate that difference. As soon as you enact POMV, you
stop thinking about principal and earnings. You make one big pot
of money, and it's going to be about $27 billion and from that
day forward, Alaskans are going to regard that as their
permanent fund and they're not going to differentiate between
what it's earned and what it hasn't earned. And I think from
that day forward, we're going to have to give them some
reasonable and, I think, explicit promise of inflation proofing.
If these models hold true, then for us to write inflation
proofing in the Constitution is no risk at all to the fiscal
stability of the state. But, if I can finish, I have concerns
about whether this model is going to hold true over the long
run. We haven't seen a crushing period of inflation for some
time now, not since the late '70s and early '80s. The first
president I ever voted for was Jimmy Carter. Then I moved to
Alaska and found out what a bad idea that was from many
Alaskans' point of view. And during that time period, there was
terrible, terrible inflation and I think, given the federal
deficits that are being run up here in this country, the largest
ever in the history of the nation, sooner or later the bond
market is going to have to react to that and I think interest
rates are going to have to go up. And so I'm just concerned that
unless we put some positive guarantee of inflation proofing on
paper - because in your system, inflation proofing is implicit
and I'd like to make it explicit. I guess that's my chief
concern.
MR. STORER: Mr. Chair, first off I've looked at a lot of
scenarios and the worst case scenario, in either case I believe,
is, I'll call it hyper-inflation. We can handle rising inflation
to some degree but if we revisit the '70s - the '70s, like the
Depression, were the two very singular events. Can they happen
again? Of course they can happen. That's the worst-case scenario
under either scenario. It seems to be, well, if it happens, it's
not in the foreseeable future. But the one thing I want - a
couple of elected officials have asked me to provide statutory
guidance, statutory insight that essentially addresses precisely
what you're talking about - about memorializing the guidance by
statute.
CHAIR SEEKINS: And I understand that. In fact, I would support
that. Go ahead, Senator Therriault.
SENATOR THERRIAULT: If we got into a situation like the '70s
with staggering inflation, under the current system we have a
big problem too.
MR. STORER: That's the worst-case scenario, there's no question
about it. For a long time I've run models just trying to find
what is the worst-case scenario. It gets postponed for a few
years but you would have a big issue in terms of maintaining
purchasing power and, at least historically, you would see low
returns in bonds and equities during that period as well.
SENATOR THERRIAULT: So the current system has not only the
instability of the dividend roller coaster, but it's more
susceptible to hyperinflation and the erosion that would accrue
to the fund?
MR. STORER: I believe it is. I believe it is because of that
line that it is principal that you cannot go below and there
would be - the question was - it becomes would inflation
proofing be abandoned in that scenario? I personally find it
hard to believe it would not be because the only way you could
access income, or the first line would be to abandon inflation
proofing so you're no longer maintaining your purchasing power
anyway.
SENATOR THERRIAULT: Mr. Chairman, it is true, as far as the
wording here, Section 3 is a one time deposit of $4.5 billion
that the legislature would be putting before the people and the
people would vote on [whether] that $4.5 billion deposit from
the earnings reserve would go into the principal, establishing a
new level for principal. So I just wanted to clarify that. But,
with regards to the 5 percent draw, the language says you may
take up to - it may not exceed 5 percent. It doesn't say thou
shalt take 5 percent each year. And, in fact, because you've got
4 or 5-year averaging, you are actually drawing off less than 5
percent. It's more like 4.75 or 4.8. Is that correct? Because
you've got a growing fund - you've got new resources that are
going in, you've got inflation proofing going in, so when you
take the 5-year average of a growing fund, it's actually less
than 5 percent of that year's market value.
MR. STORER: Through the chair, that's absolutely correct. If you
look at the snapshot of the payout versus the ending value of
the fund, it looks more like around 4 and three-quarters
percent.
SENATOR THERRIAULT: So we look back on the history. The 10-year
history shows that from a 10-year look back that we could have
paid the 5 percent and if we want additional protection, we can
consider statutory language or if somebody wants to propose or
come up with a way sensibly to put it into the Constitution, you
could have language that says if you get into a situation where
you're going to dip down below that line, then you put the
brakes on and your allowable draw is even less.
CHAIR SEEKINS: I think it's very easy for us - I always - what I
hear now - people say is well, it could erode the principal, we
could be dipping into the principal and that's why I wanted to
make it very clear that there's a $4.5 billion buffer from where
the fund is now until we get to the principal. So that, in my
mind, kind of satisfies that argument. And secondly, you know,
I'm concerned about the faults of the current system where our
growing fund causes us to overspend. We can exceed that 5
percent if we wanted to in overspending and how we do it,
including inflation proofing - inflation proofing appreciating
assets, which sometimes doesn't make that much sense to me
unless somebody else is willing to do it for me, but, when I
look at the current method, and if I try to characterize - let
me ask you a question. How many investment funds and investment
managers are just looking ... [END OF SIDE A].
TAPE 04-4, SIDE B
CHAIR SEEKINS: ... current method of handling endowment funds?
MR. STORER: Mr. Chair, the answer is not many because there are
already - rushing to our methodology?
CHAIR SEEKINS: Yes, our current methodology.
MR. STORER: 85 percent of the endowments, the universities use
some variant of what we're proposing. I'm not sure that I'm
aware of any entity that still lives off the concept of realized
income. Even accounting standards changed in the mid-'90s to
recognize that appreciation is income as well.
CHAIR SEEKINS: So we're not thinking up something new and a lot
of other financial minds have said how can we best preserve our
endowment without, you know, over the long term eroding it to
nothing? And a percent of market value methodology is what they
have found to be the best way to do that. Am I correct?
MR. STORER: That is correct and there's many examples in Alaska
that have adopted the percentage of market value payout as well.
CHAIR SEEKINS: For example?
MR. STORER: For example Anchorage. I was just talking to Senator
Stedman - Sitka. I know the University of Alaska at Fairbanks -
the foundation for years in Alaska has that methodology.
CHAIR SEEKINS: The City of Fairbanks.
MR. STORER: The City of Fairbanks has one. Bob Bartholomew in
our office, the chief operating officer, was just in Barrow and
he said that they've adopted the POMV as well. I'm not sure
whether Valdez has or not.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Okay. Senator Therriault?
SENATOR THERRIAULT: Bob, you're a fiduciary for the permanent
fund so you understand the fiduciary duty or obligation. Do you
think it would be fair to characterize that if we had POMV, and
you proposed to go to our current system, would you be
subjecting yourself to possible litigation for breaking your
fiduciary obligation - taking us to a system that is more
subject to the ups and downs of the markets and more subject to
the dangers of high inflation?
MR. STORER: I'm sorry - if we?
CHAIR SEEKINS: If we...
SENATOR THERRIAULT: The POMV.
CHAIR SEEKINS: If we had the POMV.
SENATOR THERRIAULT: And you were proposing that we go to the
system that we have currently, which is more of a roller coaster
and more subject to inflation, would you possibly be setting
yourself up for a claim that you have broken your fiduciary
obligation?
MR. STORER: One of the keys in a fiduciary is showing a process
to make an informed decision. So if I was trying to convert us
back, I would - within that obligation would be to show you a
process that why - to give you an informed decision and I don't
think I would be breaking my fiduciary responsibility. I think
it would be a real challenge though, to convert from a POMV to
realized income when you realize there's so many complexities in
terms of our equity portfolio structure and the appreciation of
those assets.
CHAIR SEEKINS: If I could reword that just a little bit then -
would recommending that someone go from a percentage of market
value process, similar to one that's been recommended, to the
current realized income, would it be in compliance with
reasonable person responsibilities? I mean you...
MR. STORER: It would be a challenge.
CHAIR SEEKINS: It would be a challenge. I'll leave it at that.
MR. STORER: But it would be - as I noted earlier, it would be
inconsistent with current accounting standards. So, one of the
challenges would be to say if current accounting standards
recognize appreciation of the assets as earnings, then why are
you saying that that doesn't matter and only realized income
matters? That would be a challenge.
CHAIR SEEKINS: So if we divorce ourselves, if we separate how
any distribution would be used from the process, the process is
the one that's most currently adopted by major endowments,
financial advisors across the nation if not the world.
MR. STORER: True, Mr. Chair. The permanent fund is about 27
years old now and if you look at our statutes - distribution,
inflation proofing, they're 27 years old. We've [indisc.]
additions to try and meet contemporary investment standards in
there but they're 27 years old. Our realized income statutes
made sense back then. I think you've all seen a slide that shows
how our asset allocation has changed. I think our objective is
to create a permanent fund that can meet the needs of the
legislature, the citizens of Alaska, and also address
contemporary investment management issues and that's what we're
trying to do.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Senator French?
SENATOR FRENCH: Thank you. Call me hard headed but I'm really
stuck on the inflation proofing issue and I think this chart
makes my point as well as it makes yours. I'm not against
modernizing the way the fund is handled, but if this model holds
true, you can write into the Constitution, you must inflation
proof the fund before distributing earnings and as long as you
are, you know, over the last five years you would have beaten 5
percent - oh, I'm sorry - back to 1994, to the beginning of this
chart, you would have beaten 5 percent every single one of those
10-year rolling averages and so you'd have exactly what you
want, which is a predictable payout, and exactly what I want,
which is concrete inflation proofing. Am I misunderstanding this
chart?
MR. STORER: No. That chart - there'll be some point where that
chart will go below the 5 percent.
SENATOR FRENCH: Sooner or later in time.
MR. STORER: Yes.
SENATOR FRENCH: It just happens.
MR. STORER: Yes. It will happen. And, if I arrived here in May
of '83 and we were having this conversation, you would say
Storer, you're crazy, you can't achieve it, so that's an example
and all of that. The question for all of you in regards to that
in my mind is predictability and stability versus that piece
then, which would eliminate some of the predictability or
stability of payout, wherever it goes. That's there in the
discussion point. And whether - how one wants to have that
decision, either have that decision taken away, have that
decision by statute, or address it every year, etcetera, that's
the debate. What we're proposing gives greater predictability,
greater stability to the payout over time, but the potential
exists that at some time you could go below what we now call
principal. The other side of the coin, the benefit, is you're
not going to overspend in the good years. So, in a perfect
world, if it happens in this environment, you've got the cushion
to where you never have to go there.
CHAIR SEEKINS: I think, as a way of comment, I think inflation
proofing is important but, as I said earlier, it's not a hard
decision for me - if I was going to inflation proof my if I
couldn't feed my kids. I think the legislature deserves to have
that kind of flexibility if we get into that kind of a
situation. The state's going bankrupt and our Constitution says
we must inflation proof our fund. I don't think that that's good
fiduciary responsibility for the legislature to even think about
that and so, in many respects, when I look, Mr. Storer, at how
we inflation proof now, we're inflation proofing appreciating
assets, which in many schools of thought would not be something
that most people would do. Am I again fairly close to correct on
that?
MR. STORER: Mr. Chair, to use the POMV you don't need to
inflation proof it because you are investing in inflation
proofing assets so it occurs. The problem we have is those
inflation proofing assets, such as equities, can be converted
into profits and then those profits can be distributed and so
POMV actually does memorialize inflation proofing - the
appreciation as well. The current statutes do not guarantee
inflation proofing. You still have the same debate either way,
which is inflation proof or make a payment.
CHAIR SEEKINS: In your estimation, for the coming fiscal year,
what would inflation proofing be in total dollars?
MR. STORER: I'm going to say about 575 - I don't think it's 600
million. Inflation is a bit over 2 percent right now and the
fund is such - I guess more like 500 million.
CHAIR SEEKINS: So $500 million that we'll put into inflation
proofing, regardless of what other needs the state has.
MR. STORER: Correct.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Thank you. Senator Therriault?
SENATOR THERRIAULT: Thank you. At looking at this chart I think
- something that this chart also points out that - in addition
to the inflation proofing we have - the legislature has
continued to put excess money into the permanent fund and that's
basically what the hills - the peaks are here is the retention
in the fund of excess dollars above and beyond the 25 percent
contribution every year above and beyond inflation. If you look
back over the years, of course, we've dumped in billions and
billions of dollars in just additional cash deposits too. So the
allowance over a long period of time, you know, coming close to
this line or slightly dipping below and then going back up, you
made your extra deposits, you retained the extra value here to
protect yourself against that and, you know, in addition, we
could put something on the books that would limit the draw, you
know put some dampers on the draw in any period that you did get
below.
MR. STORER: That is correct and also the legislature, if this
were the February 2000 and 25 percent of the fund was profits,
the legislature displayed the discipline that we're asking for
and did not overspend, did not exceed the 5 percent and that
gave us the cushion to work through a very severe bear market -
a 3-year bear market to where we were able to make the
distributions, we were able to inflation proof. Why? Because
that discipline was there, both in the special appropriations to
the fund and not taking more of the earnings than is necessary,
reasonable.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Senator Therriault, go ahead.
SENATOR THERRIAULT: Thank you Mr. Chairman. So with the current
situation, if you are concerned about the legislature eroding
the value of the fund, and we're getting into a tight revenue
scenario and more and more pressure to come up with money, with
that $4.5 billion sitting out there that can be realized, that
should be weighing on your mind I would think.
MR. STORER: It's available for consideration.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Mr. Storer, conceivably the legislature could
establish - to answer the question, the concern about eating
into the principal of the fund, which has been dedicated there
and I think is defined legally - am I correct there - what the
principal is?
MR. STORER: It is.
CHAIR SEEKINS: So there's a legal definition of what we consider
the principal of the fund.
MR. STORER: Um-huh.
CHAIR SEEKINS: If we were to say okay, as a legislature, we
could take that principal fund as of the end of the last fiscal
year, we could deposit into it the royalty income that we get in
from oil and natural resources. And, in addition to that, we
could theoretically take an average inflation proofing over the
last two or three or four - we do 2 years now, don't we?
MR. STORER: We take 1 year, Mr. Chair, but it's the rate of
change between the 2 years.
CHAIR SEEKINS: We could add an inflation proofing number and
establish a statutory principal number, which the legislature
could use and say you can't spend below this line and still keep
track of what the principal of the fund is after inflation
proofing and compare that to the market value to be able to see
whether or not we really are, through disbursement of the market
value, eating into the principal of the fund and use that as
legislative guidance.
MR. STORER: There's any number of pieces like that - using a 10-
year rolling average, a 5-year RIT (ph), redefining principal in
the statutes, recognizing the impact of inflation on - principal
is a notational number. It's a recordkeeping number. It has
nothing to do with how we manage the money so you can convert
that recordkeeping number by statute. My Director of Finance,
[indisc.] but that's okay, because it's one more thing to keep
track of. But that's another way of doing it and then you'd have
to change the statutes or address it through statutory change.
CHAIR SEEKINS: And by doing that we could provide some
indication of the fiscal responsibility of the legislature to
the people of the state of Alaska as we go forward.
MR. STORER: It would be a more rigorous process if that occurs.
CHAIR SEEKINS: Okay. Other questions? Hearing none, I want to
thank you very much, Mr. Storer, for coming to talk with us
today and we will move next - I think we're going to give the
full committee the opportunity to take a look and we'll address
this when everyone can be here - Senator Ellis, Senator Ogan as
well. So we'll move on from SJR 18 and set it aside and go to
[SJR] 19 and I see representatives here. We've got
Representative Croft, welcome to the committee, and representing
Senator Lincoln, if you gentlemen will put yourselves on the
record, welcome to the committee and we're eager to hear your
testimony.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|