Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/01/1998 03:32 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 490 - INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX Number 0474 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business was HB 490, "An Act relating to insurance premium taxes." Number 0500 JAMES HORNADAY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott, came forward to present HB 490. He stated HB 490 was introduced by request; it exempted certain premiums paid by employers participating in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) of Alaska or in the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) of Alaska, and premiums paid under contracts purchased under AS 39.30 from the tax levied on insurers found in AS 21.09.210. He stated, "This amendment, we hope, will encourage participation in the systems (indisc.) it will strengthen those programs as well as assist the individual employees in those systems." Mr. Hornaday said he understood, from brief discussions with Representative Ryan and also the director of the Division of Insurance, there was an amendment which Representative Kott did not oppose, and which Mr. Hornaday said he was told would make this an even better bill. The sponsor statement read: Current Alaska law (AS 21.09.210(I)) prohibits taxes of any kind from being imposed on insurance premiums paid by the State. However, buried in Alaska's voluminous insurance laws is a provision which could be interpreted to require the Director of Insurance to levy a unique type of premium tax on certain health insurance policies issued to the University of Alaska, municipalities and school districts. HB 490 leaves in place this seldom used tax but clarifies that the tax does not apply to health insurance premiums written to the University of Alaska, municipalities and school districts. The public policy issue which HB 490 clarifies is that the State of Alaska will not impose a tax on health insurance sold to the University of Alaska, municipalities and school districts. To impose a "back door" health insurance tax on the University and the State's political subdivisions makes no sense from either a policy or fiscal perspective. I urge your support of the legislation. Number 0600 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee had distributed to the members a May 1, 1998, letter from the Anchorage school district written by Mr. Lindquist. Chairman Rokeberg asked Mr. Hornaday if he wished to speak to the provisions on the "jumbo" insurance. MR. HORNADAY deferred to Mr. Reinwand. Number 0656 JERRY REINWAND, Lobbyist for Blue Cross Blue Shield Alaska (Blue Cross), came forward to testify. He noted they had put some information in the bill packets. Mr. Reinwand indicated some information the director of the Division of Insurance somehow unhappy with an aspect of this information and he apologized. Mr. Reinwand summarized the issue in Blue Cross's view, stating, "Should insurance that is sold by Blue Cross and any other insurer to municipalities, school districts, REAAs [Rural Education Attendance Areas] -- there's a question about whether the university is covered or not covered. The premium tax has never been collected on the university, but there has been a debate about whether they're in or they're out. The bottom-line question is: Should those insurance policies be taxed for public entities? The state -- there's a specific provision in the insurance code that exempts the state when the state was purchasing insurance before it went self-insured that exempted the state from paying taxes on any insurance that they bought. And at least us, and again we may ... be open to error on this, but that's - that's really what we believe the public policy is, should the legislature or should anyone impose a tax on insurance purchased by public entities other than the state. ... The Section 2 of the ... proposed committee substitute basically says that if you're a member of PERS or ... TRS, you do not have to pay the tax. ... That is an oversimplification, but that's the basic issue." Section 2 of Version E read: * Sec.2. AS 21.09.210(i) is amended to read: (i) Premiums paid by the state, premiums paid by employers who participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System of Alaska or in the Teacher's Retirement System of Alaska, [FOR INSURANCE POLICIES] and premiums paid under contracts purchased under the provisions of AS 39.30 are exempt from taxation under this chapter [SECTION]. An insurer may not include the tax imposed under this section in a premium charged on an insurance policy or contract purchased by the state under the provisions of AS 39.30. An insurer may claim the exemption on forms provided by the division of insurance. Number 0758 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Mr. Reinwand mentioned there was a problem with the information Blue Cross had given the committee. The chairman said he was not quite sure what Mr. Reinwand had been referring to. Number 0766 MR. REINWAND said he would let the director of the Division of Insurance speak to it. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Blue Cross supported the legislation. MR. REINWAND answered in the affirmative. Number 0790 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Reinwand to elaborate on his comments about the university. Number 0798 MR. REINWAND indicated Wendy Redman, Vice President for Government Relations, University of Alaska, was present and should speak to that. Mr. Reinwand stated, as he understood it, Blue Cross has had discussions with the division but the tax has never been imposed, nor has the tax ever been collected on the University of Alaska. He indicated HB 490 would clearly say that in no event would it ever happen, noting insurance directors change and it could be something that might be done differently in the future. He said it was clear that there was that possibility for other public entities and the real question was, "In effect, should you tax public entities?" He noted Blue Cross did not think they should. Number 0838 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "So your testimony, Mr. Reinwand, is the university's been skating on this one." MR. REINWAND said that was not his testimony. Number 0868 ED LINDQUIST, Director, Contract Administration/Benefits, Anchorage School District, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated the district's primary interest in this was that it was funded in large part by the state so the district was, in effect, just sending money back to the state that the state had sent it. He said, "We are under a minimum contract where ... insurance companies that would administer our plan, but it's the funds of the district which are provided by the state that really manage the plan. What essentially happens, then, that we are supported by funding and then the premiums, which either the district pays or the employee, ... the premium is then raised by that amount until the money simply comes back. Our concern is, and particularly in recent years, and I could probably have seven or eight employee groups here to testify, but I don't think you would want to spend that amount of time, is, in recent year, the employee contributions have gone up significantly because the district has not had enough money to fund any portion of the premium to a greater extent then it did about six years ago. Consequently this is a directly a tax on the employee when the premium is paid, the employee and the premium increases. That 2 percent comes directly out of the employee's pocketbook and it's kind of negative direction, particularly in - in terms of the way wages and salaries have been virtually frozen for the last several years. So consequently it really is a negative thing." Number 0987 MR. LINDQUIST continued, "Our belief is that if this applies to state employees and other agencies in the state who are funded by the state, that the same principles and policies ought to apply to employees of the school district. (Indisc.) that's our position, it really doesn't matter which insurance company it may happen to be at any given time. Our concern is that we think we're spending time (indisc.) around money coming to us and sending it back in a manner that's not particularly efficient and secondly, it is a wage tax in a sense on employees who are paying a higher premium than they would otherwise have to pay when their salaries and wages are funded primarily by the state." He indicated that summed up his comments. Number 1043 LINDA HULBERT testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks. She stated she had lived in Fairbanks for 30 years and was an insurance agent. Ms. Hulbert testified in favor of the amendment to HB 490. She stated the proposal was that state premiums had to be paid at the usual 2.7 percent for individual life insurance policies, up to $100,000 per year, which she said would yield the state about $2,700; she indicated the state premium tax would then be decreased on amounts above $100,000 per year. Ms. Hulbert stated there were not very many premiums in the state of Alaska for individual life insurance exceeding $100,000 per year and continued, "With the advent of the Alaska Trust Act, we have had a significant increase in the amount of trust and the interest in doing trust business in the state of Alaska. I've had the privilege of traveling all around the United States working with attorneys, working with accountants, and working with insurance agents to publicize and let people know about the Alaska Trust Act." She said the state premiums had been an been an issue, not just with other states, but also in placing trusts in foreign jurisdictions. In foreign jurisdictions there were, she said, of course, no premium tax at all. She asked the committee's consideration of this amendment, she thought it was very favorable, a revenue enhancer to the state of Alaska, and would certainly encourage large insurance policies to be placed in Alaska trusts. She said it would make the state much more competitive in the marketplace. Number 1136 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Ms. Hulbert had said there were very few policies of that amount in Alaska. He asked if there were any such policies. Number 1143 MS. HULBERT stated she did not know and deferred that question to the director of the Division of Insurance. She said she couldn't say she personally did not know of any, but would say that the revenue from them was probably not that significant. She thinks Alaska could see significant revenue with large policies if this amendment was enacted. She said she thought it would be very revenue positive for the state of Alaska and it would certainly encourage people to do their trust planning in Alaska. She commented, "More trusts mean more trust officers, more attorneys, more jobs in the state." Number 1177 REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN asked if she had anything encouraging to say about it. MS. HULBERT replied she had done a small amount of research with the life insurance marketing and research area. She said their research statistics indicated approximately 12,000 individual life insurance policies were sold per year with insurance premiums of over $100,000 per year. She commented, "So, I think that it's a good thing for the state of Alaska and I think it will enhance the trust industry and the financial planning services industry that we're all so eager to build." Number 1216 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Ms. Hulbert who she envisioned would ultimately have to pay this tax, wondering whether it would be the employee. Number 1220 MS. HULBERT said this was not an employee-employer situation, it was an individual. She commented there were very few people employed in the state of Alaska who could afford to put $100,000 a year into a life insurance policy. She said, "We think that primarily this is going to attract policies from outside the state of Alaska. We would normally not see any of these premiums and ... they would go to a foreign jurisdiction or into another state. But when we add them to the Alaska Trust Act, a lot of people are very eager, in my estimation, to place business and new work with the Alaska trust, but when you do work with the Alaska Trust Act, that policy is sold in Alaska and owned in Alaska by an Alaska trust company. That means the premium revenues come to the state of Alaska. So, instead of the premium revenues going to another state or instead of the policy going offshore, it comes here and we get the revenue. (Indisc.) most of the revenue that would come in under this amendment is revenue that would come in under this amendment is revenue that would come in from individuals living outside the state of Alaska." Number 1288 PATTI BLATTMACHR, Alaska Trust Company, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. She stated she spoke in favor of the amendment because she believed it would increase revenue for Alaska, indicating Ms. Hulbert's comments had been fairly complete. Number 1303 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no more witnesses on teleconference for HB 490. Number 1350 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON apologized for not being present promptly when the meeting began. He asked if the proposed committee substitute had been adopted properly before the committee. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered it had not. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted he had heard two witnesses indicate support for the amendments and he said he was assuming, then, that the witnesses were in favor of the revised bill in this draft. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed and he noted he believed there was an additional amendment. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 490, Version E, labeled 0-LS1775\E, Ford, dated 4/29/98. There being no objections, Version E was adopted. Number 1415 BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Legislative Affairs and Government Affairs, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959, came forward to testify. She stated she was there to speak in favor of the proposed committee substitute for HB 490. Referring to Mr. Lindquist's testimony, she noted in her "other job" she negotiated collective bargaining agreements and had actually been hit with this particular issue across the table. She noted, "Mr. Lindquist is exactly right, our members ended up paying. We represent three of the seven bargaining units there that he referred to earlier in his testimony. What I found interesting -- I also negotiate contracts with the city of Anchorage and unless possibly the Division of Insurance has different information, I have never faced that particular issue with the Municipality of Anchorage. So, even within the city of Anchorage, there's a difference in how that tax has historically been applied with (indisc.) Municipality of Anchorage versus the Anchorage School District. Anyway, we are very much in favor and encourage the members of the committee to support it as well." Number 1429 WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for University Relations, University of Alaska, came forward to testify. She noted she had not seen the proposed committee substitute [Version E] and indicated she was therefore speaking to original version of HB 490 and the section on the exemption for the PERS and TRS employees. She noted, as Mr. Reinwand had stated, the university was currently exempt from paying this type of retaliatory tax and had never paid it, however, she said, "In my long experience in this state, I always feel a lot more comfortable if things are really clear in law. So, I think making a very clear statement that PERS and TRS are clearly exempt would be ... very helpful, certainly from our perspective." Number 1476 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted for the committee's information that was Section 2 of the proposed committee substitute. He noted Ms. Burke would be the last witness on HB 490, and if anyone else wished to testify he or she should inform the chair. Number 1502 MARIANNE BURKE, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came forward to testify next. In the interest of clarity, Ms. Burke said she would like to first address the portion of the legislation specific to life insurance policies and then the larger issue. She stated the Division of Insurance supported the amendment which would impose a premium tax of 2.7 percent for the first $100,000 of premium on a single life insurance policy. For a premium over $100,000, the premium tax would be at 0.1 percent. Ms. Burke said this was very positive for the state in the opinion of the Division of Insurance's opinion for the reasons Ms. Hulbert stated. Ms. Burke indicated it would potentially create additional premium tax revenue because these policies currently went to the state with the lowest tax. She noted they would like to have these policies in Alaska for the very obvious reason of collecting the premium tax, but she noted the larger reason was that it would generate additional industry in Alaska for the entities formed under the Alaska Trust Act. She commented she would be happy to address questions to that extent and then address the remainder of the bill. Number 1589 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Sections 1 and 3 of the bill related to the "jumbo insurance premium tax exemption revenue gainer." He asked, "I know it's very difficult to try to estimate, but ... in terms of what kind of revenues you think we would generate because ... of these provisions?" Number 1614 MS. BURKE said the chairman was correct, it was very difficult. She said she foresaw and intended to work toward encouraging life insurance companies to form subsidiaries in Alaska which would market these very large policies to the ultra rich. Ms. Burke indicated the potential revenue was from zero to infinity. Number 1644 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he had received a call from an estate planning attorney in New York City the other day, urging him to submit this amendment. He noted the attorney said he had a client who paid a yearly premium of $200 million and that policy could be in Alaska if the state was competitive with offshore jurisdictions. Representative Ryan commented it was difficult for him to imagine someone with $200 million dollars a year to pay for a life insurance policy, but he assumed there were those kind of folks in the world and he'd be more than happy to encourage them to bring their business to Alaska. Number 1670 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed $200 million was the premium, indicating he wondered what the face value of the policy was. He said to Ms. Burke it was clear there would be positive results from that but it was just difficult to predict them, asking her if that was correct. Number 1683 MS. BURKE replied that was correct, saying she would like to add one thing. She said she would prefer to see people who were paying that kind of money place their business with regulated companies as opposed to going offshore or going to the Cayman Islands or the Terks (ph) and Cacos (ph), et cetera. Number 1699 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if she suspected the primary reason these people had gone offshore was that all 50 states, acting independently, had some type of premium tax. MS. BURKE replied she thought that was one of the reasons. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the ranges of premiums taxes for other states. Number 1714 MS. BURKE said it was very difficult to compare premium taxes because other states attached other types of taxes. She said with this amendment, Alaska would be highly competitive if not the lowest. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any further questions in this area. AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER, possibly Representative Ryan stated he had an amendment. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Well no, it's in her testimony ...." He indicated he wished Ms. Burke to proceed to her testimony on Section 2 of the proposed committee substitute. Number 1747 MS. BURKE noted this area was far more complex and she would do her best to be as clear as possible. She said that this was not ideal language, and so she would like to address the concept. In AS 39.30, the legislature decided many years ago that it didn't really make sense to have circular money, and she explained, "Why would the state tax the state, collect the money and then give it back to the state to form a circular situation. And in AS 39.30, they said political subdivisions, I mean it's not good language. Over the years, various insurance companies, various directors, various attorney generals, attorneys general, have interpreted this in different ways. The division needs the guidance of this body to clarify what you want. That is, in my opinion, the crux of this matter. There is a lot of extraneous information that's being introduced and I would like to address that, but the bottom line is, if the state of Alaska is providing monies to governmental entities, everything from a small little city, a fourth-class city some place in the state to the state itself. If it is the intent of the legislature not to have this circular money, then all of those entities should be treated the same. There's been testimony the University of Alaska has never been taxed on, and that's true. There are a number of other entities that have never been taxed on the premium tax. I am asking that we have clear indication from this body that either you want them taxed or you don't. The language that we have put together would make sure that the decision, if reached not to tax them, would be applied fairly to every governmental entity." Number 1868 MS. BURKE stated, "By using PERS and TRS, and the reason I object to that, is there are some small governmental entities that can't afford to participate in PERS. If we adopted this into law as it reads, we would penalize the ones who are too poor for PERS." Ms. Burke indicated she would like to make sure everyone was treated fairly and noted she thought this was an attempt to try to capture those entities, but she indicated it was very clear some of the smaller cities did not participate and there were also entities in there that would not be considered governmental entities. Ms. Burke said she did not think it was the original intent, nor would she suspect the current intent be to extend that to non- governmental entities. She stated, "So to that extent, I support this concept ... and as the director of the Division of Insurance, I'm asking that it be clarified." Ms. Burke indicated there was another issue, one she felt it was absolutely critical that it be addressed, which had been raised by the Anchorage School District. She said Mr. Reinwand indicated she was unhappy and said that was a very fair statement." Number 1940 MS. BURKE commented, "We're mixing apples and oranges here ... and I think it's important that we clarify this. The premium tax of the state of Alaska is 2.7 percent. It is imposed on entities that aren't exempted. However, if those entities purchase their insurance from a hospital medical corporation that is domiciled in another state, they can be subject to a retaliatory tax. Now the purpose of the retaliatory tax goes back a long time and I'm not sure that I understand the rationale of why it came about, but it did. And basically it says that if the domiciliary state imposes a tax that's greater than the state of Alaska, the company must pay to the state of Alaska tax at the same rate as the other state. So, in 1994, the state of Washington changed their taxing scheme. As a result their domiciled companies pay more in premium tax than they would pay if they were in the state of Alaska, and they have to pay the state of Alaska the difference. Since this didn't exist before 1994 it was not issue." Number 2013 MS. BURKE continued, "In 1994 when this happened, this retaliatory tax kicked in. A business decision was made that tax on to the purchasers of insurance and since we only have one writer of health insurance in the state of Alaska that is subject to this retaliatory tax, they are the only ones who got hit by it. They passed it on and I am not questioning for a second the appropriateness of passing it on, it is a cost of doing business. But it was characterized as an additional tax that the state of Alaska was imposing on health care costs when in fact it was not premium tax, it was an additional cost of business that was imposed because that company is domiciled in a different state. It does put an unfair disadvantage on that company. As you know, one of my charges is to maintain an even playing field; not to discriminate in favor or against any one company but to try to keep it fair for competition. The clarification of who is and is not subject to the premium tax will clarify this entire problem and it'll go away. However, it is very important to me to make sure that the people who were hit by this tax realize that this is a result of the state of Washington's change in their tax system, not the result of Alaska's change in tax system. And I realize it's complicated and I apologize for that, I try to bring it down to, hopefully, something we can all understand ...." She said she would be happy to answer the committee's questions. Number 2116 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said Ms. Burke had indicated Blue Cross was the only company paying this retaliatory tax. He asked if that was because there was no other large group insurer which happened to insure these groups of workers. Number 2127 MS. BURKE replied that was correct. She stated, "No other large health care provider that's domiciled in the state of Washington. Other states have retaliatory tax, but it does not kick in for Alaska. (Indisc.) just happen." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked why that was MS. BURKE replied, "It's the way the Washington tax structure is set up. Let's take AETNA [AETNA US Health Care] for example, since that's another big one. Happens to be domiciled in Connecticut. When you compute their tax according to their schedule and compare it to ours, there's no problem." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if it was because it was similar. MS. BURKE said, "And the bottom line ... does come out the same (indisc.)." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Similar or lower, (indisc.) not higher, higher is the Washington problem?" MS. BURKE said that was correct. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "So it's unique to Blue Cross only because ... where they're domiciled." MS. BURKE replied, "Exactly ... and thank you for making that clear, it is only because they happen to be domiciled in the state of Washington and Washington's taxing structure is the way it is." Number 2175 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "So their socialist policies (indisc.) affected us, 'cause I been asking 'em for years what happened, why Blue's rates went up so much. Maybe that explains the explains the 25 percent increase in Blue Cross's premiums in the state of Alaska this year." MS. BURKE stated, "Mr. Chairman, if I may, one ... of my biggest task[s] I see is to make sure that none of the Washington cost are pushed onto the people of the state of Alaska." Number 2194 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Also ... is the fact that if - if language is changed to make it more universally applicable to other political subdivisions, is that the division's opinion or the administration's opinion on this bill? Number 2203 MS. BURKE replied she was very comfortable that this was in line with the Administration, she did not think it was the Administration's position that taxing should be unequal. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG additionally asked about the fiscal note, stating, "Whereas in FY [fiscal year] there'd be a $2.651 million loss of revenue, is that correct?" Number 2220 MS. BURKE confirmed that was correct and said she would specifically like to address that. She said that was their best estimate and they have explained how it would be extrapolated. If the revenue did not come in, they must make sure the revenue did not go out. However that was accomplished, she noted that if they were going to have a circular flow of money they had to make sure the whole circle was addressed. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if she had any suggested language or if the department had had a chance to look at it. Number 2249 MS. BURKE responded it was her understanding it was not ready to be presented in the form of an amendment and if this committee moved the legislation, it would be introduced in the next committee at the first hearing. Number 2260 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he did not see a sponsor's representative present and said perhaps Representative Ryan could speak to the issue. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated he had not been aware of this and would have to know the sponsor's wishes before he spoke. Number 2292 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the will of the committee, noting he was somewhat concerned if the Administration was going to have additional input on the bill. He indicated the bill had no further committees of referral besides the House Finance Standing Committee. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated he would like to offer an amendment and move the bill. Number 2311 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Representative Ryan if he had an amendment and if there was any further testimony on HB 490. Hearing none, he stated the public hearing on HB 490 had been closed. Number 2314 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said the director of the Division of Insurance wanted to be sure there wasn't any ambiguous language. He commented on the wording of Section 3 in Version E, which read, "AS 21.09.21 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (n) The tax imposed under this section shall be computed at the rate of one-tenth of a percent for a policy of life insurance with a policy year premium that equals or exceeds $100,000." Representative Ryan stated, "To give the director comfort, I would like to add this conceptual amendment which says, an new sentence, add after the $100,000, where it says: 'Policy year premiums below the value of $100,000 shall be taxed at a rate of 2.7 percent of the amount of the policy year premium' and that clarifies the fact that we're not removing the 2.7 percent tax for those policies below that - that value." [It appeared Representative Ryan may have given the chairman a written copy of the language.] Number 2355 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented it was a clarification amendment. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN answered in the affirmative. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if he had made a motion. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to adopt the conceptual amendment, designated as Conceptual Amendment 1. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG read Conceptual Amendment 1 for the record. Conceptual Amendment 1, on page 2, beginning on line 23, after $100,000, add an additional sentence to read: "Policy year premiums below the value of $100,000 shall be taxed at a rate of 2.7 percent of the amount of the policy year premium." He asked if there were any objections. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 2384 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he would offer a conceptual amendment on page 2, line 14, after "Teacher's Retirement System of Alaska," insert "all other political subdivisions in the state". He noted it was a conceptual amendment, not a specific word amendment, to provide that the testimony of the department would be met. He said he did not see anyone present from the bill sponsor's office and confirmed it only affected "governmentals." He indicated the committee would have the sponsor contact Ms. Burke's office to make sure the language was appropriate. MS. BURKE replied that would be fine. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment 2. There being no objections, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 2450 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move the proposed committee substitute, Version E, for HB 490 as amended with the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objections, CSHB 490(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|