Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/28/1999 01:50 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 101(FIN) am
"An Act relating to disasters and to the disaster
relief fund."
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to adopt work draft 1-LS0625\Y,
Utermohle, 4/27/99, as the version before the Committee.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on
File]. He explained that the amendment would insert
language "an incident such as" on Page 4, Line 10. He
believed that the language would add back more flexibility
and would provide direction to the Administration. There
was NO OBJECTION to adoption of Amendment #1.
Representative Grussendorf voiced concern with the language
change made on Page 1, Line 13, having replaced "a
concurrent resolution" with "law". Representative
Grussendorf advised that from a procedural point, in order
to be responsive to an emergency, the language should be
changed back.
DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, explained
that the service would continue to need to be addressed by
law. Mr. Peterson pointed out that George Utermohle
indicated that was an oversight in statute, and that a
concurrent resolution would be the vehicle which could stop
the Governor's disaster declaration done by law not by
concurrent resolution.
Representative J. Davies argued that presiding officers
could not do anything by law or by concurrent resolution.
Such action would be dependent upon the vote of the entire
body. Mr. Peterson explained that Mr. Utermohle had amended
the legislation to read "law".
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY,
LEGISLATIVE LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES, explained that he
recommended the change because under the provision, a
disaster declaration is good for a period of thirty days.
In order to extend that period, there must be an extension
of the power to address the disaster, which is a power given
by law. To extend that power provided in statute, would
take an act of the Legislature. He advised that extending
through a concurrent resolution would not be appropriate.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if authority had been granted
for a disaster declaration in the front section of the
budget and would that take new law to continue. Mr.
Utermohle replied that it would as it is provided by the
provision.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that in the original
legislation, a concurrent resolution was proposed. He
challenged the timing in changing that to a "law". Mr.
Utermohle responded that he did not question the purpose
behind the resolution, however, noted that he was trying to
provide for the recommendation so that the action taken by
the Legislature will have effect and be upheld given a court
challenge.
Representative J. Davies advised that law currently is
provided for such a mechanism. He asked how this would be
different then LBA acting through a revised program. Mr.
Utermohle replied that an appropriation does not have the
affect of changing the law. The appropriation may authorize
the Governor's response to extend it to the disaster
declaration but the Governor's power to act would be
restrained by the language in the statute. An appropriation
would not change that.
Representative J. Davies replied that it would not
absolutely be constrained to 30 days, however, it would be
unless the Legislature takes that action. Mr. Utermohle
replied that the language stipulates that a disaster may not
be placed into effect after 30 days, unless extended by the
Legislature. Representative J. Davies pointed out that the
current statute states that "unless extended by the
Legislature" by a concurrent resolution. It is provided for
a 30-day extension by that mechanism. Mr. Utermohle argued
that logic had been used to justify the use of the
concurrent resolution to absolve regulations. The
Legislature has the power to grant agencies to adopt
regulations and has the power to determine the means by
which those regulations could be repealed or resolved. The
Court determined that the Legislature could not give
themselves that power.
Representative Grussendorf advised that this is the
separation of powers issue, however, the discussion is not a
separation of powers concern. In response to Representative
J. Davies, Mr. Utermohle testified that he was not sure how
the appropriation would fit into this. Representative
Grussendorf pointed out that the Governor should have the
appropriation power.
Co-Chair Therriault summarized that Mr. Utermohle foresaw a
problem with proposed language and has advised the
Legislature that a change could address this concern. Mr.
Utermohle agreed.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to amend the language in
the committee substitute deleting "law" and inserting "a
concurrent resolution" as Amendment #2. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault requested Mr. Utermohle to write a memo
outlining his concerns. Representative J. Davies asked him
to include information regarding how the action would be
different from authority given to the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT,
provided an in-depth overview of the proposed committee
substitute, l-LS0625\Y, Utermohle, 4/27/99. He advised that
there was no fire limit placed in the House Finance
committee substitute.
Representative J. Davies questioned how different the
proposed legislation was from existing statute.
Mr. Peterson replied that it is not that different from
existing statutes. Mr. Tibbles noted that Subsection (I)
was identical to the previous version.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment #3 to Page
2, Line 13, inserting "per disaster declaration" after
"$1,000,000". There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Bunde MOVED to report HCS CS SB 101 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CS SB 101 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two zero fiscal notes by the
Department of Environmental Conservation dated 4/7/99 and
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs dated 4/7/99.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|