Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/25/1996 01:30 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 HB 368 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM                                     
 Number 0210                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the first order of business before             
 the House Judiciary Committee was 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."                             
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee has already taken up HB
 368 in two different hearings.  Several amendments are now before             
 the committee, in response to concerns raised by the Department of            
 ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,             
 Department of Law, stated that she would like to address a proposed           
 amendment to the criminal provisions of HB 368, which begin on page           
 24.  The amendment prohibits knowingly engaging in conduct that               
 violates a provision of AS 15.13 or a regulation adopted under AS             
 15.13.  The department is requesting this because they can prove              
 knowingly violating a statute, as opposed to intentionally                    
 violating, which is not how the criminal law is written.  The                 
 amendment would also remove Subsection B, because the section does            
 not relate to the state prosecution of criminal violations.  It may           
 have another meaning, in relation to federal violations.                      
 MS. CARPENETI further noted that under Campaign Misconduct In The             
 Second Degree, the amendment makes a change on page 25, in                    
 connection with the prohibitions starting on page 24, "knowingly              
 write or print or circulate material that would provoke a                     
 reasonable person under the circumstances to a breach of the                  
 peace."  The department added the phrase, "or that a reasonable               
 person would construe as damaging to the candidate's reputation,"             
 to clarify what is a reasonable person's standard.                            
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the proposed amendment would be number             
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move amendment number 17.           
 MS. CARPENETI stated that she had not completed her discussion of             
 the amendment.  On page 24, lines 4 - 7 were deleted, because the             
 material is covered under campaign misconduct in the first degree,            
 "knowingly engaging in conduct that violates a provision," rather             
 than "knowingly violating a provision."                                       
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the version being amended was CSHB 368               
 version F.                                                                    
 MS. CARPENETI responded in the affirmative.  She further stated               
 that, on page 25, the department's amendment would delete the                 
 material on lines 5 - 7.  This would delete the provision which               
 states that "violation of this section is a corrupt practice."  In            
 terms of state prosecution, this provision is not necessary.  On              
 page 25, line 10, the amendment inserts the word "if."  The                   
 material on lines 11 and 12 of page 25 would be replaced with the             
 following:  "If a person violates a provision of AS 15.13, or a               
 regulation adopted under AS 15.13 ...".  This would be a strict               
 liability, and would bring the language in line with criminal                 
 prosecution in the state.  In connection with that, the department            
 would delete the word "intentionally" on line 16, page 25, so that            
 if a person is within 200 yards, their intent does not have to be             
 proved.  On line 23, since the provision on line 5 has been                   
 deleted, the reference to it must be deleted from line 23.                    
 Number 0746                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if the committee should adopt             
 version G as the working version.                                             
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee had adopted the                     
 amendments piece by piece.  He noted that the committee should ask            
 the bill drafter to make the conforming amendments.  Version G is             
 the amended version that conforms to what was adopted at the last             
 meeting.  Chairman Porter asked if there was any objection to                 
 adopting version G as the working draft.                                      
 Number 0819                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN commented that the amendments                
 being considered were prepared for the prior version of the bill.             
 CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the committee would preface each               
 amendment by stating that the bill drafter should make it conform             
 to the page and line of the new version.  There being no objection,           
 CSHB 368 version G was adopted as the working version.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move amendment 17, with the             
 stipulation that the bill drafter make the amendment conform to               
 version G.                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that much of the material                   
 contained in the amendment was unfamiliar, and he wasn't sure that            
 he understood its significance.  Some of the changes to provisions            
 of existing law, for instance, have nothing to do with the bill               
 itself.  He stated that he had no objections, because he didn't               
 know enough about the law.                                                    
 MS. CARPENETI responded that she would be happy to get information            
 from people who know more about elections, per se.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked why the committee would get rid of           
 language in existing law, without knowing what it means.                      
 MS. CARPENETI responded that she was trying to make the language              
 conform to the way criminal prosecution is handled.                           
 Number 0914                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN proposed that the committee remove the             
 section which would delete existing language from the proposed                
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY stated that he didn't believe the amendment           
 actually changed the bill.  He further stated, "I am absolutely               
 amazed that we are making it a misdemeanor to put out some sort of            
 advertisement that would make somebody else fighting mad."                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that that was the existing law,              
 and was not affected either by the initiative or the bill, prior to           
 the proposed amendment.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that it would now be campaign                     
 misconduct in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor class B.              
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that the conduct is now considered            
 a class A misdemeanor, and the amendment would make it a class B              
 Number 0993                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that all violations of AS 15.13                
 could be treated as misdemeanors.  Virtually all violations of AS             
 15.13 also have a civil fine.  Violations are normally pursued                
 under civil penalties, rather than as misdemeanors.  He reiterated            
 that the entire section strikes him as rather odd.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that the committee was actually             
 considering AS 15.56, election offices corrupt practices and                  
 penalties.  He said his only point was that the initiative would              
 not affect those particular violations.                                       
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Brooke Miles to address the committee.                  
 Number 1066                                                                   
 BROOKE MILES, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department             
 of Administration, stated that the reference to corrupt practices             
 is contained in current law, although it is not a part of the law             
 over which the APOC has purview.  It is in the election code under            
 AS 15.56, and it refers to election misconduct.  Ms. Miles stated             
 that she is somewhat familiar with the provisions, because the APOC           
 sometimes receives concerns from members of the public about truth            
 in public advertising.  The only place where that issue is                    
 addressed is AS 15.56.                                                        
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Carpeneti if she felt the issue was a               
 policy call.                                                                  
 MS. CARPENETI responded that it is a policy call.                             
 Number 1139                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if Ms. Carpeneti was upset with the               
 definition of corrupt practices.                                              
 MS. CARPENETI responded that she was not upset.  She stated it was            
 a policy call, whether to leave the section in or take it out, and            
 would not affect the criminal division.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that he was proposing an                    
 amendment to the amendment, which would change page 25, lines 4 -             
 7, to lines 4 - 6, by deleting the referenced section.                        
 Number 1166                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted the amendment to proposed amendment number              
 17.  On the third reference to page 25, lines 4 - 7, the amendment            
 to the amendment would change the reference to lines 4 - 6.                   
 MS. CARPENETI interjected that the committee would also want to               
 add, under campaign misconduct in the first degree, that violation            
 of this subject is a corrupt practice.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that his amendment was a                     
 conceptual amendment.                                                         
 CHAIRMAN PORTER reiterated that the amendment to the amendment was            
 to reincorporate the reference to corrupt practices, in the two               
 places where amendment number 17 removed it.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected, on the grounds that he did not                 
 understand the proposed amendment to the amendment.                           
 Number 1253                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that Ms. Carpeneti was proposing to            
 take out a reference that the committee didn't understand, and                
 Representative Finkelstein was proposing to leave in the reference,           
 for the same reason.  He further noted that he understood the                 
 reference was in existing statute.                                            
 MS. CARPENETI apologized for bringing up the issue.                           
 Number 1295                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated he was inclined to defer to the existing               
 law, in the case where he did not understand something.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that there were several more                 
 proposed amendments, and suggested that this issue be moved to the            
 bottom of the list.                                                           
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the proposed amendment number 17 would            
 be put aside for the time being.  He announced that the next order            
 of business was proposed amendment number 18, version F.11, dated             
 3/23/96.  He explained that the amendment addresses the court                 
 system's concern about the need for a jury trial or public                    
 appointed council in cases of election law civil violations.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked who had proposed the amendment.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there are other civil actions where             
 statutes specifically proscribe a jury trial.                                 
 CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that there are.  In small claims actions,           
 for instance, the value of the claim is not high enough to justify            
 the cost of a jury trial.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that the possible damages in this              
 type of case would be greater.                                                
 CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the rationale was, this would                  
 actually be an appeal.                                                        
 Number 1540                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to adopt amendment number 18.             
 Hearing no objection, amendment number 18 was adopted.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt proposed amendment                
 number 19.                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected, for purposes of discussion.                         
 Number 1588                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that the proposed amendment speaks             
 to the disposition of a candidate's campaign account.  He noted               
 that the amendment refers to the previous CS, and would need to be            
 redrafted to conform to the present version.                                  
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted for the record that all amendments offered              
 today would be so conformed.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE continued his explanation of the proposed                
 amendment number 18.  It would insert new bill sections, regarding            
 the balance left in a campaign account after the election, and                
 would stipulate that the funds cannot be used as personal income.             
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if this was a different amendment            
 from the one proposed at the last meeting.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded in the affirmative.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that the premise that any                   
 personal use of campaign funds would be allowed by HB 368 is wrong.           
 He stated that the bill absolutely bans in specific terms any                 
 personal use of campaign funds.  The money can only be carried                
 forward to the next campaign, for a list of specific campaign uses.           
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he did not believe the bill speaks           
 to what happens to the leftover money.  This amendment would do               
 Number 1672                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that the bill adds to the                    
 allowable uses of surplus campaign funds, by saying that $5,000 can           
 be carried forward for an account for future election campaigns.              
 That is on page 15, line 17.  Once funds are put into an election             
 account, they fall under use of campaign funds, which is already in           
 the bill.  There is never an opportunity to take the funds as                 
 personal income.  Should a person decide not to run again, the                
 funds must be donated to a party, returned to contributors, donated           
 to a 501(C)(3) charitable group, or given to the state or                     
 municipalities.  There is no opportunity available for personal use           
 of campaign funds.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS noted that under current law, a                   
 candidate can take campaign funds for personal use.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN concurred.  The proposed bill being                
 amended, HB 368, prohibits any personal use of campaign funds.                
 Therefore, he questioned the need for the amendment.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that the language of the bill could               
 conceivably allow a person to say that they might run for office at           
 some point in the future, and put up to $5,000 away for that                  
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that the section on pages 14             
 and 15, regarding dispersement of campaign assets after elections,            
 deals with that issue.  He commented that the proposed amendment              
 was confusing, and might actually weaken the bill, by use of the              
 term "surplus balance."  The bill currently states that any funds,            
 whether surplus balance or not, can never be used as personal                 
 Number 1909                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that because the use of surplus funds             
 as personal income was not specifically prohibited by the bill, he            
 thought the amendment was necessary.  He then proposed a conceptual           
 amendment related to funds accrued before the effective date of HB
 368, so that those existing funds would fall under the terms of the           
 bill.  He also stated that he would like to see the effective date            
 for this section occur before the upcoming primary election, so               
 that candidates can make decisions accordingly.                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that the concept was interesting.            
 He suggested a conceptual amendment, which would make the                     
 provisions related to personal use of campaign funds effective as             
 of July 1, 1996.  The remainder of the bill would not take effect             
 until January 1, 1997.                                                        
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the amendment would need to be rewritten.            
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he was comfortable with adopting             
 Section B only, if the committee concurred.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested that the easiest way to                  
 proceed would be to modify the amendment, as follows:  "Lines 28              
 and 29 of page 13 go into effect on July 1, 1996."                            
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that amendment number 19, left to the bill              
 drafter to craft appropriately, would say on page 13 of version F,            
 lines 28 and 29 have an effective date of July 1, 1996.  There                
 being no objection, proposed amendment number 19, as modified, was            
 Number 2080                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN then returned to the discussion of the             
 proposed amendment number 17.  He explained that the reference to             
 corrupt practices ties the law into AS 15.56, which states that               
 corrupt practices trials receive expedited treatment.  He stated              
 that he did not have a strong feeling regarding the provision.                
 MS. CARPENETI stated that she thought it would be best to leave the           
 existing language in the section.                                             
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the committee would accept a conceptual              
 amendment to amendment number 17, deleting the two references to              
 the corrupt practices act.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked for an explanation.                                
 CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that existing law would be left as is.              
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained that AS 15.56.115 says that              
 cases involving elections matters shall be promptly tried, and the            
 case shall be accorded a preferred status to ensure a speedy                  
 CHAIRMAN PORTER reiterated that the provision is already in                   
 existing statutes.  Hearing no objection, the proposed amendment to           
 amendment number 17 was adopted.                                              
 Number 2212                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to adopt amendment number            
 17, as amended.  Hearing no objection, amendment number 17 to CSHB
 368 was adopted.                                                              
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the Department of Law had further                    
 MS. CARPENETI responded that all concerns had been addressed.                 
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were other proposed amendments.                
 Number 2288                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that he had two proposed                    
 amendments, one with two alternatives.  It was pointed out at the             
 last meeting that there was an internal inconsistency in the                  
 proposed bill.  On page 5 of the previous version, the basic tenets           
 of who can make campaign contributions are laid out.  Groups can              
 give, to a limited degree, to other groups.  The committee seemed             
 to have some interest in eliminating the ability of groups to give            
 to groups.  The approach in the House State Affairs version is that           
 groups can give to groups at the same level as they can give to               
 anyone else, which is a $1,000 contribution.  Representative                  
 Finkelstein stated that his goal is to make sure the section is               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he was trying to think of a situation where a            
 group, which is two or more people gathered together for the                  
 purpose of influencing an election, would give money to another               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that groups, such as the                     
 Associated General Contractors, sometimes decide to give money to             
 a political party.  In this context, the word "group" also applies            
 to a political party.  Without this approach, only individuals--as            
 opposed to groups--can donate to political parties.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that this provision would allow, for           
 instance, the Republican Women's Club to give to the Republican               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the issue is, should such groups be               
 allowed to donate to political parties.  In the instance where a              
 group is actually a sub-group of a political party, they should not           
 be able to.                                                                   
 TAPE 96-42, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0002                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated that the provision refers to groups in            
 general.  For instance, a group might want to influence an issue,             
 but they don't have much money.  Under this provision, they could             
 donate their money to another group, which might be able to exert             
 more influence.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the committee needs to think in              
 terms of ballot propositions, in addition to candidates.  Ballot              
 propositions are seldom, if ever, advocated by individuals.  They             
 are almost always advocated by a group.  This creates the group to            
 group relationship.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that this particular view of                 
 amendment number 19 is alternative 2.                                         
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that it was proposed amendment number 20, not           
 number 19.  He asked if there was any objection to adopting                   
 amendment number 20, alternative 2, version F.12 dated 3/25/96.               
 Hearing no objection, amendment number 20 to CSHB 368 was adopted.            
 Number 0106                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN proposed a conceptual amendment to the             
 new bill version, on page 18, line 8.  The amendment would insert             
 the phrase "$50 per day for each day the delinquency continues,"              
 between "then" and "as".  The entire amendment results from a                 
 drafting problem in the original bill.  Representative Finkelstein            
 further noted that there should be civil penalties for these                  
 offenses, with a maximum fine and a per day charge, because people            
 need a greater incentive to correct delinquencies.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the committee was considering version           
 G or version F.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted, for purposes of clarification, that the           
 amendment would require two changes.  It would change line 4, from            
 $500 back to $50, and at line 8, insert "not more than $50 per                
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that the amendment would not             
 change line 4.  According to the section, there are three levels of           
 violations.  There are reporting violations, which are $50.  There            
 are special reporting violations, which are $500.  This last                  
 category covers all other potential violations.  The amount does              
 not need to be $50.  It could be $25, but the important thing is              
 that there is a provision allowing for civil penalties.                       
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what was being deleted.                                 
 Number 0302                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that nothing was being                   
 deleted, but rather the phrase "$50 per day for each day of                   
 delinquency" was being inserted.  He further explained that the               
 APOC has complete discretion to lower fines.  The per day is for              
 the amount of time that the person fails to address the violation.            
 This approach is consistent with the current APOC structure, which            
 seems to be widely supported.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why the committee would want to let the            
 fine become so large.  He noted that $500 is a substantial fine,              
 and the offenses are misdemeanors.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that this was the civil                  
 penalty provision, and that misdemeanor provisions would not apply.           
 It is true that violations can accumulate; however, APOC will lower           
 fines if the violation was unintentional, and the circumstances are           
 explained.  The amendment and the proposed changes are intended to            
 achieve consistency with current law.                                         
 Number 0346                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that it was his understanding that the            
 proposed bill says that a person who violates the provisions of AS            
 15.13, other than a reporting violation, would be subject to a per            
 day fine.  How can a per day fine be applied to a violation of that           
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that the commission has                  
 discretion, for that exact reason.  Some cases will not require a             
 cumulative fine.  However, there are major circumstances that can             
 fall under this provision.  For instance, knowingly attempting to             
 receive non-allowable donations would not be a reporting violation.           
 In such a case, the APOC might choose to apply the $50 per day                
 fine.  More likely, they would set a cap on the fine.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asserted that the commission would then have             
 carte blanche to set the level of fines.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded that the current level, for              
 reporting violations, is already $50 per day.  However, this is               
 only the maximum allowable fine.  The commission reserves the                 
 highest fines for the worse cases.                                            
 Number 0496                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what is the existing law in regard to APOC's            
 ability to impose fines for offenses not related to reporting.                
 MS. MILES explained that current statute allows for civil penalties           
 only for late reports, and are per day penalties.  Thirty days                
 before election reports, ten day after election reports, and year             
 end reports are fined at a maximum of ten dollars per day.  This              
 level would not be changed in the proposed bill.  The report that             
 is filed seven days prior to an election, and the 24 hour reports,            
 where a candidate must report larger contributions within the ten             
 days just prior to an election, are currently fined at $50 per day.           
 These are reporting violations only.  At present, the commission              
 does not have civil penalty authority for other provisions of the             
 law; for example, not identifying who paid for an advertisement.              
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked about line 4, referring to violation of AS              
 110.(A)(2) and 110(B).  Does the $500 per day refer only to the               
 last two reports?                                                             
 MS. MILES responded that, yes, the $500 per day refers only to the            
 24 hour and the 7-day reports.  The $50 per day would apply to                
 other reporting violations.                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the wording of the statute is confusing.           
 Number 0680                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that Ms. Miles was referring to              
 the $50 per day on the previous page, page 17, line 2.  This $50              
 does apply to other, non-reporting violations.  The problem is that           
 the initiative takes a completely different approach.  It states              
 that all violations are subject to a maximum penalty of $500 per              
 day, if certain standards are met.  The standards relate to a state           
 of mind.  The State Affairs committee was trying to keep the new              
 bill as close as possible to current law.  He stated that his                 
 proposed amendment would allow a broader application of civil                 
 penalties, but would not disturb the APOC's existing fee structure.           
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was further discussion of the                  
 amendment under discussion, amendment number 21.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the amendment would insert the phrase           
 "$50 per day for each day."                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that that was accurate.  Amendment 21 would            
 amend page 8, line 18, of version G, to insert the phrase, "$50 per           
 day for each day the delinquency continues" between the words                 
 "than" and "as."                                                              
 Number 0723                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to adopt amendment number            
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected.                                                
 CHAIRMAN PORTER requested that a roll call vote be taken.                     
 Representatives Toohey, Davis, Finkelstein, and Bunde voted yes.              
 Representatives Green and Vezey voted no.  Therefore, amendment               
 number 21 was adopted.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked for discussion of version G, page 18,              
 line 4, regarding the $500 per day amount.                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the existing law imposes higher                
 level fines for violations of reports that are due under short                
 deadlines, immediately before and after an election.  This                    
 provision recognizes that these are more serious violations.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Miles what would be the current                
 maximum fine.                                                                 
 Number 0611                                                                   
 MS. MILES responded that the maximum fine is currently $50 per day            
 for late 24-hour report and late 7-day reports, and $10 per day for           
 other reports.                                                                
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that these levels would be raised to $500 and           
 $50, under the proposed bill.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented that this was the maximum                
 allowable fine, and would only apply to a tiny proportion of actual           
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were any other proposed amendments             
 to CSHB 368.                                                                  
 Number 1009                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion that the committee pass out               
 CSHB 368, as amended, with individual recommendations and attached            
 fiscal notes.  Hearing no objection, CSHB 368 was passed out of the           
 House Judiciary Committee.                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects