Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/18/1994 09:10 AM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
  CSSB 213(JUD):      An  Act  extending  the   Alaska  Public                 
                      Utilities  Commission;  and  relating to                 
                      regulation  of  public utilities  and to                 
                      regulatory cost  charges; and  providing                 
                      for an effective date.                                   
                      Alyce   Hanley,   Commissioner,   Alaska                 
                      Public   Utilities  Commission   (APUC),                 
                      Department   of   Commerce   &  Economic                 
                      Development,  and  Bob  Lohr,  Executive                 
                      Director, APUC, Department of Commerce &                 
                      Economic   Development,  testified   and                 
                      asked the committee to  delete Section 1                 
                      of CSSB  213(JUD).   Josh Fink, aide  to                 
                      Senator Kelly  spoke  to the  CS.   Dana                 
                      Tindall,  Senior   Vice  President   for                 
                      Regulatory  Affairs,   GCI,  and   Jimmy                 
                      Jackson,   regulatory   attorney,   GCI,                 
                      former  hearing  officer  of  the  APUC,                 
                      spoke in favor of amendment  2.  Michael                 
                      Burns,   Chairman   of   the  Board   of                 
                      Directors,  Anchorage  Telephone Utility                 
                      (ATU), and Gary  Lucken, Acting  General                 
                      Manager,  Anchorage   Telephone  Utility                 
                      (ATU),   testified   in   opposition  to                 
                      amendment  2  proposed  by  GCI.    Mark                 
                      Foster,  private  consultant,  engineer,                 
                      former  APUC   Commissioner,  spoke   in                 
                      support of CSSB 213(JUD).  CSSB 213(JUD)                 
                      and amendments 1, 2, and 3, were HELD in                 
                      committee until April 19,  1994, and Co-                 
                      chair  Frank  and Senator  Kerttula were                 
                      asked to research language  in amendment                 
                      form that would address  concerns of the                 
  CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 213(JUD):                                             
       An  Act   extending   the   Alaska   Public   Utilities                 
       Commission;  and  relating   to  regulation  of  public                 
       utilities and to regulatory cost charges; and providing                 
       for an effective date.                                                  
  CO-CHAIR  PEARCE  announced  that  SB  213  was  before  the                 
  committee.  She  invited Alyce Hanley  and Bob Lohr to  join                 
  the members at the table.                                                    
  ALYCE   HANLEY,   Commissioner,   Alaska  Public   Utilities                 
  Commission  (APUC),   Department  of  Commerce   &  Economic                 
  Development, asked the committee to consider an amendment to                 
  delete Section 1  of CSSB 213(JUD).  She went on to speak to                 
  the  language "liberally construed."   She  said it  was not                 
  unique language in  public utilities commissions  (PUCs) and                 
  the Alaska PUC was fairly new, organized in 1972.  The major                 
  portions  of  the  APUC  statutes   came  from  Oregon,  and                 
  commissions  across  the  country  enjoy  the   same  powers                 
  afforded by the language "liberally  construed."  She shared                 
  a few examples where the  APUC had used that language.   One                 
  had to do  with the garbage in  Healy.  The person  that had                 
  the  certificate  to pick  up the  trash  had not  picked up                 
  garbage for two months.  APUC  members went to Healy, had  a                 
  consumer input hearing, and  determined a public  necessity.                 
  Temporary  certificates were awarded  to two other companies                 
  so that they  could begin trash  pickup and address a  major                 
  health hazard.  In the statutes, the Commission did not have                 
  the ability  to award  temporary certificates  but authority                 
  for  such an  incident was  drawn  from the  term "liberally                 
  Ms. Hanley went on to say that sometimes it could  benefit a                 
  utility.  A utility could come to the Commission and explain                 
  that fuel and insurance  costs had increased and it  was not                 
  earning enough to continue operation.   The Commission could                 
  temporarily review the  situation, and allow the  utility to                 
  increase  its  rates  on an  interim  and  refundable basis.                 
  Again,  the   authority  for   this  came  from   "liberally                 
  construed."  She  reminded the committee that  the utilities                 
  they dealt with were not all sophisticated ones.                             
  She also  felt removing  the "liberally  construed" language                 
  could cause problems  because of increased competition.   It                 
  would be  more difficult  for APUC  to respond  in a  timely                 
  manner.  By restricting  the APUC's authority, she  felt the                 
  legislature  would assume more  of the  regulatory authority                 
  and have more  questions and problems.   In court cases,  it                 
  could  change   the  way   the  APUC   authority  would   be                 
  interpreted.   Instead of looking  at the stated  purpose of                 
  the APUC, the  courts would  look at specific  mention of  a                 
  particular power.  She urged the committee to delete Section                 
  1  and  instead  to  target   specific  problems  that  were                 
  perceived with the  APUC rather  than remove the  "liberally                 
  construed" language.                                                         
  SENATOR   KERTTULA  asked   who  recommended   the  proposed                 
  BOB LOHR, Executive Director, APUC, Department of Commerce &                 
  Economic Development, said the Alaska Rural Electrical  Coop                 
  Association (ARECA) had  been promoting the deletion  of the                 
  "liberally construed"  language  and  the  phrase  found  in                 
  Section  1  of  the  bill  which  would  narrow  the  APUC's                 
  authority  within  those  areas.     In  answer  to  Senator                 
  Kerttula, Mr. Lohr said  that Ms. Hanley had touched  on one                 
  problem, temporary operating authority.   The second problem                 
  would  be  interim  refundable rates.    Currently,  the law                 
  clearly authorized the  Commission to establish a  rate that                 
  was  subject to refund and to  require a bond of the utility                 
  in order  to cover the difference between the permanent rate                 
  and  the  interim  rate.    The  Commission  had  "liberally                 
  construed"  that authority to  mean that  interim refundable                 
  rates,  without  requiring  a  bond  of  the  utility,  were                 
  appropriate.    Without  Section  1,  that  assumption would                 
  probably not hold up in court.   The utilities had benefited                 
  and acknowledged it.   In  roughly 50 percent  of the  eight                 
  cases that had gone to  the Supreme Court, interpreting  the                 
  phrase "liberally construed",  four had been to  the benefit                 
  of the utilities.                                                            
  CO-CHAIR FRANK said in a "perfect world" he would agree with                 
  the  "liberally construed"  language,  but the  Constitution                 
  limited the  power of  government and the  laws limited  the                 
  power  of  regulatory agencies.    He believed  the existing                 
  language  was too  broad and  proposed language  may be  too                 
  narrow.   He would like to find  a way to speak to the areas                 
  where the power should be liberal  and limit those powers in                 
  some way.                                                                    
  Mr.  Lohr  said that  Co-chair Frank  had made  an excellent                 
  point and agreed there might be a middle ground.  The common                 
  area  of  discussion  had been  issues  within  the specific                 
  powers  and  duties  that were  conferred  that  may deserve                 
  legislative attention.   He read  a quote from  the original                 
  court case, Homer  Electric Association  versus the City  of                 
  Kenai, "this provision (talking about "liberally construed")                 
  represents  two guiding principles determining the extent of                 
  the APUC jurisdiction under specific  provisions of the Act.                 
  On  the  one  hand it  includes  a  principle of  limitation                 
  restricting the APUC's power to the  specific jurisdictional                 
  areas  of  its  stated purposes.    On  the  other hand,  it                 
  includes a principle of expansion  mandating that the APUC's                 
  power to act  within its specific areas  of jurisdiction 'is                 
  to be  liberally construed.'"  He went on  to say it did not                 
  confer any powers that were not  already there.  He admitted                 
  there  may have  been  a  few  years  of  bureaucratic  foot                 
  dragging,  and that the  APUC took too many  years to take a                 
  position, but the "leading liberal construed" would have the                 
  affect  of giving  the  Commission a  better excuse  for not                 
  acting.    It could  say  "our  hands are  tied,  go to  the                 
  Mr. Lohr believed, in looking  for terms of specific  powers                 
  or specific areas of agreement,  if the legislature, through                 
  intent  language or  otherwise, directed  the Commission  to                 
  work    with    the     associations    representing     the                 
  utilities/cooperatives to do a review of the specific powers                 
  and duties,  and come  back with  recommendations next  year                 
  with some kind of deadline, it would be very beneficial.                     
  SENATOR SHARP asked  in relation to interim  tariffs subject                 
  to refund, which basically were  ordered with the suspension                 
  of a  tariff filing,  had there  ever been  an interim  rate                 
  tariff set so high that there had ever been a refund  order.                 
  Mr.  Lohr said  there  had been  and  could supply  details.                 
  Senator Sharp believed in most cases the interim rates would                 
  be set  considerably below the  tariff filing and  that time                 
  period was not subject to recoupment.                                        
  Senator Sharp went on to speak to "liberally construed."  He                 
  felt  it had been  used to  the detriment  of consumer-owned                 
  utilities,  and  pictured  it  as  a  blank  check  for  the                 
  Commission.  Mr.  Lohr said  "liberally construed" had  only                 
  appeared in the text of court cases eight times.                             
  Senator Kerttula pointed out that this act was  initiated in                 
  1962-64 and modified again  in 1971-72.  It had  always been                 
  supported strongly by those who now have a problem with this                 
  provision.  He questioned that since the other 49 states had                 
  a  similar  program,  maybe  there  was  an artful  form  of                 
  modification  of   these  powers   as  Co-chair   Frank  had                 
  suggested.   Mr. Lohr answered that state statutes for state                 
  agencies  had  been researched  and  there  was a  range  of                 
  phrases that  accomplished the  broad  result of  "liberally                 
  construed."    He  said  there  were  about  12 states  that                 
  actually used the phrase "liberally  construed,"  and others                 
  ran  the gamut  from broad  to strict  phrases.   Discussion                 
  continued by  Senator Kerttula  and Mr.  Lohr regarding  new                 
  JOSH  FINK,  aide  to Senator  Kelly,  chairman  of  Labor &                 
  Commerce Committee,  sponsor of  SB 213,  said that  the two                 
  differences  of  the  Labor &  Commerce  CS  and the  Senate                 
  Judiciary CS was  that the  Judiciary CS deleted  "liberally                 
  construed" and also mandated regulation  of cable unless the                 
  consumer opted out.  Previously, in law, the consumers would                 
  have to petition  the APUC to be regulated  under cable.  He                 
  then went through each section.                                              
  Section 1 deleted "liberally construed."                                     
  Section 2 and 11  raised the maximum regulatory  cost charge                 
  from .61 percent to  .8 percent.  The reason  for the change                 
  may be found in Section 3.                                                   
  Section 3 explained that the cost  of power was deleted from                 
  the gross revenues of electrics in determining the regulator                 
  cost  charge.   When  the  cost  of power  was  deleted, the                 
  remaining  had  to  be increased.    In  answer  to Co-chair                 
  Pearce,  Mr.  Fink said  ARECA  made  the argument  that  in                 
  comparing  the  time  the  Commission  spent  with  electric                 
  utilities and  with other utilities, electric utilities were                 
  paying  a disportionate amount  of the  Commission's budget.                 
  The auditor recommended a time-keeping system be established                 
  but realized it would be costly.   The percentage change was                 
  a "rough cut" at making an adjustment to the regulatory cost                 
  charge  but  it did  bring electric  more  in line  with the                 
  amount of time spent by the commission.  Again in answer  to                 
  Co-chair Pearce, he  said every regulated utility  would see                 
  an increase of  about 30  percent.   The remaining  revenues                 
  from  electrics would  see  about a  30 percent  increase as                 
  Section 4  instructed the  Department  of Administration  to                 
  earmark the money collected from  the regulatory cost charge                 
  that was in excess or an overcharge.  He explained the money                 
  from the fourth quarter came in after  the end of the fiscal                 
  year, so if they  had overcharged (which would not  be known                 
  until  the  end of  the  fiscal year),  the  money currently                 
  lapsed into the  general fund.   It would earmark the  money                 
  for program receipts for next year's budget.                                 
  The following sections related  to recommendations from  the                 
  Currently,  certain   utilities,  depending  on   the  gross                 
  revenues  and type,  were  exempt from  regulation.   In  an                 
  exempted utility, the consumers  may opt to be  regulated by                 
  petition.  In the  new provisions, the opting in  and opting                 
  out  provisions  were identical.    Section 5  contained the                 
  application for electric and telephone utilities.                            
  Section  6 exempted  electric  and telephone  utilities with                 
  gross  revenues not  exceeding  $500,000  (currently it  was                 
  Section  7  referred to  utilities  other than  telephone or                 
  electric and raised the threshold to $150,000.                               
  Section 8, for the collection of trash, raised the threshold                 
  from $200,000 to $300,000.                                                   
  Section  9  was  amended  to  automatically  regulate  cable                 
  companies unless consumers opt to exempt themselves.                         
  Section  10  was  a  conforming  amendment  clarifying  that                 
  procedures for opting in and out were the same.                              
  Section 11 had been explained earlier.                                       
  Section 12  referred to  earmarking the  RCC collected  from                 
  pipelines addressed in Section 11.                                           
  Section 13 extends the APUC to 1998.                                         
  Section  14  repealed  the  sunset  of the  regulatory  cost                 
  charges  that  were  recommended  by  the Commission.    The                 
  reasoning  was that the Commission  was up for sunset review                 
  every  four years  and at  that time  the legislature  could                 
  address regulatory cost charge concerns.                                     
  Section 15 staggered  the terms  of the Commission  members.                 
  Currently, there  were two  seats that  expired at  the same                 
  time but it  would not  affect any  existing members,  terms                 
  would just run out.                                                          
  Section  17  put   an  effective  date  on   the  "liberally                 
  construed" deletion of July 1, 1995.                                         
  Section 16  made clear that any proceeding  that was started                 
  prior  to  July 1,  1995,  the "liberally  construed" powers                 
  would apply.                                                                 
  Section 18 contained the effective date.                                     
  Discussion was had  by Senator Rieger and Mr. Fink regarding                 
  Section 5 and 10,  the opting in and opting  out provisions.                 
  Mr.  Fink referred to  Section 7.12 for  clarification.  Mr.                 
  Fink  said there were two ways of exempting out, if you were                 
  a small utility and  revenues were under the threshold,  or,                 
  if revenues exceeded  the threshold, consumers could  sign a                 
  petition and opt out.                                                        
  Co-chair Pearce  invited Dana Tindall, Senior Vice President                 
  of  Regulatory Affairs, GCI,  and Jimmy  Jackson, regulatory                 
  attorney, GCI, former  hearing officer of the  APUC, to join                 
  the members.                                                                 
  DANA  TINDALL  said   she  would   give  a  general   policy                 
  introduction in support  of both  the "liberally  construed"                 
  language and the amendment GCI supported on the power of the                 
  Commission  to  fix  rates.    She  said  GCI supported  the                 
  existing language in the statute  of granting the Commission                 
  "liberally construed" powers to carry out their mandate.  It                 
  believed the Commission  had used it  to good effect in  the                 
  past  and  it was  necessary  in  order to  carry  out their                 
  mandate to insure  that competition was fair  to competitors                 
  and consumers alike.                                                         
  Ms. Tindall said  she would speak  to the policy behind  the                 
  amendment GCI supported under Section 42.05.431(a), power of                 
  Commission to fix rates.  The genesis was ATU's announcement                 
  to enter both the long distance and the video program market                 
  in the next three to five years.  GCI had concerns about ATU                 
  competing with them in the  long distance market because  of                 
  their existing monopoly over the  local exchange network but                 
  that was not really  why she was speaking today.  She wanted                 
  to speak to the rate payers of ATU.  GCI and Alascom account                 
  for about 60 percent of ATU's revenues in the form of access                 
  charges.  GCI  must pay for  the privilege of going  through                 
  ATU to  both originate  and terminate  all calls.   The  way                 
  their rates  were set  was based  on allocating ATU's  total                 
  costs between  the different  services.   GCI was  concerned                 
  about  ATU's  proposal  because  it  believed  the  ventures                 
  proposed were risky, would increase ATU's total costs, would                 
  increase GCI  rates as access  payers, and if  failed, would                 
  force all regulated rate payers to  pick up all failed costs                 
  of the venture.  She went on to explain the reasons she felt                 
  GCI's ventures were risky.                                                   
  End SFC-93 #71, Side 2                                                       
  Begin SFC-93 #73, Side 1                                                     
  JIMMY JACKSON said  that the amendment  proposed by GCI  was                 
  logged in  as amendment 2.  This amendment gave municipally-                 
  owned utilities  a protection which other  private utilities                 
  did  not have.   The protection was  that the APUC  must set                 
  rates  to insure that the bond  covenants of a municipality-                 
  owned utility were  never reached.  A similar  provision had                 
  been added  for cooperatives a few  years ago.  When  it was                 
  added for cooperatives, the statute said that new bonds were                 
  required to be approved  by the Commission.  That  had never                 
  been added for municipally-owned utilities.   He pointed out                 
  that  existing  statutes  said  that  if  ATU  entered  into                 
  ventures and any of  them failed, APUC would be  required to                 
  raise rates to  GCI and  local rate payers  in Anchorage  to                 
  cover those  losses.   GCI opposed  this law.   Amendment  2                 
  targeted this issue.                                                         
  SENATOR  RIEGER questioned  testimony that  the request  for                 
  municipally-owned utilities would be changed  to be the same                 
  as the cooperatives.  Mr.  Jackson said it would not be  the                 
  same and  referred amendment 2 to Senator  Rieger.  It was a                 
  restriction but not the same restriction.                                    
  Mr. Jackson cited the statement regarding bonds in amendment                 
  2.  He  said this section  was comparable to sections  being                 
  proposed  in  federal law.    Ms. Tindall  said  the federal                 
  legislation would permit the Bell  operating companies to go                 
  into  new  services   like  computer  information  services,                 
  previously forbidden.  While permitting  them to enter those                 
  services, the regulation would  not let them incur debt  for                 
  these  services  that would  put  the regulated  services at                 
  Mr. Jackson said ATU had premised their entry into these new                 
  markets  on  the  fact  that  this federal  legislation  was                 
  pending and believed that it was going to pass.  Amendment 2                 
  would  not  allow  these companies  to  use  their regulated                 
  monopoly  as  collateral for  new  businesses, or  put their                 
  basic  services  at risk  by going  into  new ventures.   In                 
  answer to Senator Kerttula, Mr.  Jackson said they should be                 
  able to get money because a business should stand on its own                 
  two feet.  Mr. Jackson said that press releases from ATU had                 
  stated that this legislation would  prohibit them from going                 
  into competition or issuing bonds.  He said that was not the                 
  In answer  to Senator  Sharp,  Mr. Jackson  said there  were                 
  different degrees of separation in other states by utilities                 
  when  entering unregulated  businesses.   Ms.  Tindall added                 
  that under present  statute, APUC would  be required to  set                 
  rates for  its main  business to  cover any  default of  the                 
  separate subsidiary.  She went  on to say the intent of  the                 
  proposed  amendment 2 was to  put ATU and other municipally-                 
  owned utilities that are  rate regulated by the APUC  on the                 
  same footing as anyone else going to the bond market.                        
  Mr. Jackson felt the legislature  did not envision utilities                 
  going  into  competitive  services   and  had  offered  that                 
  protection when utilities gave very basic service.                           
  MICHAEL BURNS, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Anchorage                 
  Telephone  Utility  (ATU),  introduced  Gary Lucken,  Acting                 
  General Manager,  Anchorage  Telephone  Utility  (ATU),  and                 
  thanked  the committee for  the opportunity  to speak  to SB
  213.  He said the Board of  Directors for ATU was created by                 
  the voters of  Anchorage in 1991.   At that time  the voters                 
  chose not to  sell the  company but establish  the Board  of                 
  Directors  which  indicated  a desire  that  the  company be                 
  operated and compete in accordance  with prevailing industry                 
  practices.  In February of this year, ATU announced that the                 
  company intended to complete five  fibre rings in Anchorage,                 
  enter  the   long  distance  business  through   a  separate                 
  subsidiary,  and  begin a  pay-for-view  video project.   He                 
  believed this  was in keeping with the  instruction from the                 
  people in Anchorage.   Prior to that announcement, a  survey                 
  was done and convinced ATU that was the wish of the voters.                  
  Mr.  Burns said there were several  reasons for ATU entering                 
  the  long  distance market.    First, analysis  indicated it                 
  would be profitable.  He said  ATU lowered its long distance                 
  charges last year and none of the money made its way back to                 
  consumers in Anchorage.   He  said federal legislation  that                 
  could  be  passed  this year  would  accomplish  three major                 
  goals.   One, open local markets to competition, two, remove                 
  the  prohibition  against   telephone  companies  and  cable                 
  companies from entering each  other's businesses, and three,                 
  free the Bell operating companies from restrictions on their                 
  entry  into long  distance and  other  businesses.   He said                 
  ATU's competitors and                                                        
  ATU's desire to  access Anchorage  to the information  super                 
  highway were reasons ATU was so adamant about entering these                 
  Mr. Burns said  ATU opposed  amendment 2 for  Constitutional                 
  reasons and because of the mandate from the voters.  MCI and                 
  GCI  had  publicly announced  their  intention to  enter the                 
  local  markets  and  now  were  asking  the  legislature  to                 
  restrict  ATU's ability to compete.   He maintained that ATU                 
  must be  allowed to  compete in  accordance with  prevailing                 
  industry  practices  or the  people  of Anchorage  would see                 
  their asset  value  reduced  substantially.    Finally,  the                 
  pending federal legislation he had  mentioned earlier, would                 
  open the local market to competition, and, if this amendment                 
  passed, it would be successful  in restricting ATU's ability                 
  to compete in  all areas.  He again urged  the committee not                 
  to pass amendment 2.                                                         
  In  answer to Senator Kelly, Mr. Burns said that none of the                 
  costs related to  MacTel (ATU's  cellular phone  subsidiary)                 
  were passed on to the customer.                                              
  MARK FOSTER, private consultant in utility issues, engineer,                 
  and former APUC Commissioner, said the "liberally construed"                 
  clause  represented  a fair  and  level balance  between the                 
  utilities and the  Commission, and was consistent  with most                 
  of  the  statutory  authority  in   commissions  across  the                 
  country.  He felt a specific  example would help address the                 
  situation.  In reference to  the bond covenant in  amendment                 
  2, what  the amendment did was protect  monopoly rate payers                 
  from  subsidizing   services  they  did   not  receive,  and                 
  protected competitors from  predatory pricing.  He  felt Mr.                 
  Burns had made an argument in support of amendment 2 when he                 
  indicated  MacTel's losses had not found  their way into the                 
  regulated  side  of   the  house.    This   amendment  would                 
  statutorily  make sure that did  not happen.  Under existing                 
  statute, if those  expansions were  bond funded, they  could                 
  have put some of those losses  to the regulated rate payers.                 
  He  encouraged  adoption of  amendment  2 as  reasonable and                 
  consistent to federal legislation.                                           
  In answer to Senator Kerttula, Mr. Foster posed the question                 
  "would  you  allow  a firm  that  has  a  monopoly base,  to                 
  leverage that  base of  rate payers, and  use the  borrowing                 
  power  available,  to get  into  competitive services?"   He                 
  pointed out that the Consumer  Federation of America and the                 
  American Association of Retired Persons  had made this issue                 
  one of their top  priorities in legislation.  He said he was                 
  testifying  for public  interest and  had not been  hired by                 
  In answer to Senator Rieger, Mr. Foster said the traditional                 
  approach, when there was a monopoly and a competitive market                 
  within the same  firm, was to  try and separate the  profits                 
  and losses out so there were no cross subsidies.  Mr. Foster                 
  said it was  consistent with  federal provisions in  pending                 
  legislation.  He cited voice  mail as a good example.   Many                 
  small entrepreneurs  were trying to get into the business of                 
  providing voice mail  and voice mail services  in Anchorage.                 
  This  kind  of  entrepreneur  was  not  protected  if  large                 
  utilities were  allowed the  flexibility to cross  subsidize                 
  their services and offer services like voice mail at near or                 
  below cost because  they had monopoly  rate payers to  cover                 
  those losses.   He  encouraged the  committee to  retain the                 
  "liberally construed" language and adopt amendment 2.                        
  Co-chair  Frank asked  if there  was any statute  that would                 
  prohibit ATU  from setting up  a subsidiary and  moving some                 
  amount of net worth into that  subsidiary and borrow against                 
  that equity.   Mr. Foster said he  did not know if  he could                 
  answer  that  question  today.    He  said  there  could  be                 
  arguments  where the equity would  be coming from -- whether                 
  it  was either  from the  monopoly rate  payers or  retained                 
  earnings as property of the shareholders.  They continued to                 
  discuss this situation.                                                      
  Co-chair  Pearce announced  that  SB 213  would  be HELD  in                 
  committee and asked  Co-chair Frank and Senator  Kerttula to                 
  research new language for a committee substitute.                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects