Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/29/1998 03:50 PM RES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE April 29, 1998 3:50 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Rick Halford, Chairman Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman Senator Loren Leman Senator Robin Taylor Senator John Torgerson Senator Georgianna Lincoln MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Bert Sharp COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 252 "An Act relating to paternity establishment and child support; relating to the crimes of criminal nonsupport and aiding the nonpayment of child support; and amending Rule 37(b)(2)(D), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSSB 252(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 144(FIN) "An Act relating to the authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation to charge fees; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED SCS CSHB 144(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE BILL NO. 340 "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and university land, and authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state land." - MOVED CSSB 340(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE BILL NO. 342 "An Act approving the sale of Prudhoe Bay Unit royalty oil by the State of Alaska to Mapco Alaska Petroleum, Inc.; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD HOUSE BILL NO. 73 "An Act extending the termination dates of the salmon marketing programs of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the salmon marketing assessment; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 252 - See HESS minutes dated 3/2/98, 3/4/98 & 3/20/98 and Resources Committee minutes dated 4/22/98 & 4/27/98. HB 144 - No previous action to record. SB 340 - No previous action to record. SB 342 - No previous action to record. HB 73 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 2/24/98 and 3/3/98. WITNESS REGISTER Ms. Juli Lucky, Staff to Senator Halford State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined changes in CSSB 252(RES) Ms. Barbara Miklos, Director Child Support Enforcement Division Department of Revenue 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 310 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on CSSB 252(RES) Dan Branch, Assistant Attorney General Human Services Section Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300 POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on CSSB 252(RES) Ms. Barbara Cotting, Committee Aide House State Affairs Committee State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSHB 144(FIN) Mike Tibbles, Staff to Representative Gene Therriault State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented overview on CSHB 144(FIN) Jerry Reinwand 2 Marine Way, #219 Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined concerns with CSHB 144(FIN) Ms. Janice Adair, Director Division of Environmental Health Department of Environmental Conservation 555 Cordova St. Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on CSHB 144(FIN) Richard Harris, Senior Vice President Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of amendments to CSHB 144(FIN) Ralph Bennett, Staff to Senator Taylor State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented overview on SB 340 Ms. Wendy Redman, Vice President Statewide Programs & Services P.O. Box 755000 Fairbanks, AK 99775 POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested changes to SB 340 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-36, SIDE A Number 001 SB 252 - PATERNITY/CHILD SUPPORT/NONSUPPORT CRIMES CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:50 p.m. He brought SB 252 before the committee as the first order of business. JULI LUCKY, staff to Senator Halford, directed attention to a new draft CSSB 252(RES), version "H," and two amendments to that work draft. Ms. Lucky then outlined the following changes between the new draft and the work draft (version "F") adopted at a previous hearing on the bill: - In Section 2 "recreational licensing" wording adopted at the previous hearing has been incorporated. This language differentiates between a recreational hunting or fishing license and a license required for subsistence or personal use. - Sections 3 and 5, which were in the HESS version of SB 252 but were not in the previous Resources CS, have been incorporated into version "H." - Section 4 will disallow sale of a list of social secuirty numbers collected by the state agency required by this bill. - Section 6 relates to confidentiality and would require the Department of Fish and Game at the time that they allow a vendor to sell licenses to notify them of the consequences if social security numbers are let out. - Sections 7 through 10 were in the HESS version of the bill and require the Department of Fish and Game to provide social security numbers to CSED upon request. - Section 11 is a court amendment that requires the court to provide copies of records for CSED for child support services. - Section 13 is the mediation amendment that was offered and adopted at the previous hearing on the bill. - In Section 22 the reference to first-class mail has been deleted and it now provides that service will be by certified mail, return receipt requested, or served personally. - In Section 24 the amounts the employer would have to pay as a civil penalty have been changed. - In Section 25 the language relating to subpoenas has been reworded for clarity. Number 145 SENATOR LINCOLN inquired as to the status of an amendment to Section 12 she had proposed at the previous hearing, which relates to withholding orders, an would delete the phrase "shall immediately send" and replace it with "may enforce the order by sending." She said she thought it was agreeable with the department to change that language so that it is more permissive. SENATOR GREEN voiced her concern of a person being notified in a timely manner if an order has been issued but the language provides that it "may" be sent. That means that person is left out of a loop and then could be held liable for nonpayment. BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of Revenue, clarified that this is not the section that requires the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) to send out withholding orders. This is a special court order that a person gets directly and they may send it, but it is separate of the legislation, and it is not used very often. DAN BRANCH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, said he thought the word "shall" was put in by the drafters to make sure that if you wanted to enforce a withholding order that you accompany it with all of the other documents that are listed. He said if the amendment is adopted, he doesn't think it is going to diminish the ability of a non-custodial parent who is not using the agency to enforce an income withholding order. He said the purpose of the amendment is to clarify and perhaps alleviate some of the concern that a newly divorced custodial parent might have that they are obligated by the statute to take a copy of the divorce order and send it off to anybody who might have money belonging to the child support debtor. MS. LUCKY continued her overview of the changes made in CSSB 252(RES), version "H." - Sections 26 and 27 relate to a person filing a response when served with a notice of paternity and financial responsibility. The deadline has been extended to 30 days for financial information and for admitting or denying paternity, and to 45 days to comply with genetic testing. - Section 52 makes the Act nonseverable. Number 261 CHAIRMAN HALFORD requested a motion to adopt the new Resources CS. SENATOR GREEN moved the adoption of CSSB 252(RES), version "H." Hearing no objection, the motion carried. SENATOR LINCOLN moved the following amendment to CSSB 252(RES): Page 9, line 10: Delete the language "shall immediately send" and replace it with "may enforce the order by sending" SENATOR TAYLOR objected to the adoption of Senator Lincoln's amendment. He said if the court was obligated every time to issue an income withholding order, why should someone be given the opportunity to sit on it. He added he couldn't see where the amendment, in any way, benefits that person. MR. BRANCH stated that the department is neutral on the amendment. He added that the statutes provide that every child support order issued in the state shall contain a income withholding order. The Court System has made provisions in the child support order form to allow the court to not make the income withholding order immediate in certain circumstances. He added that the particular subsection that the amendment addresses is going to be used more by the custodial parent that chooses not to go through CSED than by the agency. CHAIRMAN HALFORD called for a hand vote on the adoption of Senator Lincoln's amendment. By a vote of 1-5, the amendment failed. SENATOR LEMAN moved that CSSB 252(RES) be passed out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. CSHB 144(FIN) - DEC FEES:PESTICIDES AND CHEMICALS CHAIRMAN HALFORD brought HB 144 before the committee as the next order of business. BARBARA COTTING, committee aide, House State Affairs Committee, stated the legislation resolves a lot of problems that have needed addressing for a long time. She said the House Finance Committee has worked extensively on the legislation, and she deferred to their staff to answer any questions committee members might have. MIKE TIBBLES, staff to Representative Gene Therriault, said there was a concern that industry was being charged for items that should come out of the general fund and are now being included in program receipts. Initially, they looked at requiring a fixed fee, however, in looking at the statute, there was confusion about how the language "and other services provided by the department" should be interpreted. It was felt it was being interpreted too broadly and including items that shouldn't be included in the permittee's cost. That language was removed, but then it started to open up into other items and excluded certain things they wanted to charge for. They worked to get it to the point where fees could be charged for the reasonable functions and have the safety built in so that there wouldn't be abuses, and, at the same time, have industry pay for those actual direct costs of the services provided to them. Mr. Tibbles presented a section-by-section analysis of CSHB 144(FIN). Number 475 SENATOR TAYLOR commented that other than for pesticides, it stills leaves the determination up to the department on what the hourly fee will be and what the fixed fee will be. MR. TIBBLES acknowledged that was correct, but he said they were trying to approach it from the position of what can be charged, trying to eliminate all indirect costs, therefore forcing the fee down. SENATOR TAYLOR said by eliminating the indirect costs, the department will increase their hourly costs in order to recover the same amount of money. He voiced his position that there should be more "teeth" put into the bill. SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the department currently includes overhead expenses in their hourly billing. MR. TIBBLES replied that it was his understanding that they do, however, there is a statutory prohibition against including travel costs, but that is included in this legislation. Number 541 SENATOR LINCOLN asked if it is the department that is allowed to choose either the fixed fee or the actual direct costs. MR. TIBBLES replied that the fixed fee would have to based upon the actual direct cost. Number 585 JERRY REINWAND, representing the Chemical Specialty Manufacturers Association, said his client has concern with the uncertainty of what the charges are going to be and the uncertainty as to what the definition of the product is going to be. Mr. Reinwand said there is a dispute between the association and the department as to how many products would actually be registered. The department figures there would be about 2,000 products registered, however the association figures it would be up to 8,800 products registered. He noted some states have as many as 13,000 products registered. He said there is also a dispute between the association and the department on the definition of what constitutes a pesticide. Mr. Reinwand said the association simply has a difference of opinion with the department, and they have no problem with paying an appropriate fee. They believe that the fee should be set in statute and the definitions contained in the proposed Resources SCS are appropriate. TAPE 98-36, SIDE B SENATOR GREEN inquired if this is handled in all states through the equivalent of a DEC. MR. REINWAND responded that he believes there are states where the agriculture departments actually run these types of programs and not the environmental agency. CHAIRMAN HALFORD questioned what the registration of household products includes and what registration means. MR. REINWAND responded that even though his client's recommendation is to try to define these products, in general, by statute, the department still has a lot of elbow room to define this by regulation. He wasn't familiar with the meaning of registration. Number 550 JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, responding to Chairman Halford's question on the meaning of registration, said registration, generally speaking, is when the department gets a copy of a label of a pesticide. The label explains the cautions, how it can be used, how it shouldn't be used, etc., and this is kept on file so that they know how it can be used in the state. The manufacturer is responsible for providing this information to the department. Ms. Adair said the department worked with the House Finance Committee on the legislation, however, they still have problems with the pesticide section, and it primarily is a disagreement about how many pesticides there are in use in the state. The department's registration program just took effect late last year, so it is just now getting the information on how many pesticides there are, but based on market surveys done by their pesticide staff, there is somewhere between two to three thousand of them. She pointed out there is not much use of restricted use pesticides in Alaska, and the department does not have a problem with differentiating between restricted-use pesticides and nonrestricted-use pesticides. Ms. Adair showed the committee a label from a product that is authorized for agricultural and non-agricultural use. However, with the way the language in the Resources SCS reads, she wasn't sure what they would call it when it comes to registering it, and if they would charge the higher fee for registering an agricultural-use pesticide or lower fee for the household use. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the department prefers the categories restricted use and non-restricted use versus the three categories that are in the Resources SCS. MS. ADAIR responded that was correct, and that is how it came out of the House Finance Committee. MS. ADAIR also related that the department was concerned that the House Finance Committee's fee amount was not sufficient to match their federal grant. She said the amount of their grant isn't driving what they are asking for because the cost is less than the cost that they put into it, but the whole idea behind this bill when it was originally introduced was to get rid of $55,000 in general funds and to supplant that with program receipts that came from chemical manufacturers outside the state. Number 416 RICHARD HARRIS, a Senior Vice President with Sealaska Corporation, said the corporation is involved in industrial resource development activities and, as such, receives a number of permits each year. He said they recognize that they are going to have to pay their share, but they do have a substantial problem with the fees that were passed in previous legislation. Sealaska has objected to the current structure, and their experience is that it has created a gold rush mentality for fees for every possible regulatory action. Sealaska agrees that it should be the actual direct costs associated with those permits, but it should not be required to pay overhead costs associated with the administration of a department. Mr. Harris said Sealaska believes that the permittee has to have some protections. He said we have to ensure that the permittee is not charged for services that have not been received, and that the permittee is burdened with the indirect costs, which they believe should remain a function of the state. Mr. Harris said HB 144 does help some of the deficiencies that Sealaska has encountered, and they support the amendments before the committee. Number 350 There being no further witnesses to testify on HB 144, CHAIRMAN HALFORD requested a motion on Amendment No. 1. SENATOR TORGERSON moved adoption of the following amendment: Amendment No. 1 Page 3, line 15: Following "for" add "the actual direct costs of" Hearing no objection to the motion, CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated Amendment No. 1 was adopted. Number 340 SENATOR LEMAN moved the adoption of the following Amendment No. 2: Amendment No. 2 Page 1: Following line 3 insert a new bill section to read: *Section 1. AS 03.05.025 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (c) Notwithstanding AS 44.46.025, the fee for a seafood processing permit for a direct-market fishing vessel may not exceed $100. In this subsection, "direct-market fishing vessel" means a fishing vessel (1) that has an overall length of less than 65 feet and processes the vessel operator's own catch of seafood products on board the vessel for direct retail sale to consumers; or (2) of any length if the seafood product that is harvested by the vessel operator and processed on board the vessel is tuna." Page 1, line 4: Delete "Section 1" and insert "Sec. 2" Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Number 320 MS. ADAIR stated the department does not support the amendment. She said the $100 fee, even at the more limited hourly rate that the department would use to calculate the fixed fee, would not cover the department's costs associated with these vessels. She said on many occasions she has expressed the need to go back and look at the permit categories because industry has changed since the categories were first developed, and they are not reflective of the industry any more. She is in the process of putting together a work group to look at the permit categories and the fees that go along with them. The effect of the amendment is that it would take a group of processors that other processors complain about, lower their fee to a great amount, and then the state general fund would have to subsidize the activities involved with those types of processors. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked the current cost charged for the inspections. MS. ADAIR related that the permit and inspection together is $400 per year. SENATOR LINCOLN pointed out that the idea of the amendment was to get the fees down for the permit and inspection, but the amendment just speaks to the permit so it is not accomplishing what Senator Leman had intended. SENATOR LEMAN moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, to add the words "and inspection" following the word "permit." He said it was his intent that this would be the annual cost for these vessels that would include the permit and any inspections. MS. ADAIR pointed out if they have an inspection that ends up finding several deficiencies and necessitates going back and doing a reinspection, then that operator can just have as many inspections as he needs. She said that is not how they treat anyone else, and she wondered why, as a policy, he would want to. SENATOR LEMAN clarified he wants this to pertain to scheduled inspections, not for reinspection of violations, and he proposed doing this as a conceptual amendment to get the wording correctly crafted. CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated the conceptual amendment applies to the $100 fee to the permit and inspection, and that that be the normal scheduled inspection. There would some leeway for additional inspections, if required. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was objection to the conceptual amendment to Amendment No. 2. SENATOR LINCOLN objected, stating she did not think the $100 amount was enough. By a show of hands, the amendment to Amendment No. 2 was adopted. CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated Amendment No. 2, as amended, was before the committee. He said he personally has a problem with exempting the tuna boats because they are a lot bigger, and the operators don't live here. SENATOR TORGERSON moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, as amended, to delete subsection (2) in the amendment, which is the reference to tuna vessels. CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that it is not intended that they fall under the requirements of having a permit. It deletes them from the $100 exemption, so it may take a drafting change other than just deleting it from the amendment. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked there was any objection to deleting the exemption for tuna boats. Hearing no objection, he stated that amendment to Amendment No. 2, as amended, was adopted. TAPE 98-37, SIDE A CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated Amendment No 2, as amended, was before the committee. He added that the conceptual amendment adopted by the committee would be brought back before the committee to make sure there was agreement on its wording. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was objection to the adoption of Amendment No. 2, as amended. SENATORS GREEN and LINCOLN objected. By a show of hands, the amendment carried on a 3-2 vote. SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass SCS HB 144(RES) out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. SB 340 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA CHAIRMAN HALFORD brought SB 340 before the committee as the next order of business. RALPH BENNETT, staff to the Senate Judiciary Committee read the following sponsor statement into the record: "The provisions of SB 340 allow the University of Alaska to select 250,000 acres of state land subject to approval by the Legislature. Land approved for transfer would include interests in minerals and to oil and gas subject to certain limitations. Also lands subject to a coal lease or where a lease application is pending are not available for selection. The University would bear the costs of selection, platting, surveying and conveyance. All land selections must be made by December 31, 2012. Twenty percent of income derived from selected lands must be used at the campus closest to the income generating parcel(s). All lands conveyed under this program are exempted from municipal taxation. SB 340 is compatible with Senator Murkowski's S.660, the legislation, pending in Congress, that will convey additional public lands to the University of Alaska. "The University of Alaska system was created under federal authority as a land grant institution to provide for the higher education requirements of Alaska's people in perpetuity. Most colleges established under the land grant program were endowed with sizable land bases from which to generate income to be used for operating purposes. Unlike most institutions in the Lower 48 states, the University of Alaska does not have the relatively larger population base and proximity to other support services that are so beneficial. The University of Alaska also suffers from a smaller pool of alumni and other normal sources of endowment income which many institutions rely on to help support operations, especially subsidies for teaching positions. "In the past decade several legislators have introduced legislation allowing the University of Alaska to select additional lands from the State. The purpose of all legislative attempts to provide more land for the University statewide system has been to provide more income producing assets where monetary resources are becoming scarcer and unpredictable. This bill continues the effort to give the University of Alaska a larger, more productive land base. The bill also provides clear expectations that land conveyed is to be used for the development of value added industries where appropriate." MR. BENNETT informed the committee that Senator Murkowski's legislation has been reported out of the last committee of referral and is headed to the floor for a vote. MR. BENNETT also presented a section-by-section analysis of SB 340. He noted there was a proposed committee substitute, which makes a simple change to Section 5, the section that deals with the new land selections. The coal industry pointed out that coal leases in lease applications for coal were not included in the draft, so the committee substitute would include coal leases and the land for which a coal lease application is pending that would not be available to the University for selection. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what happens if the University gets the land and does nothing with it. SENATOR TAYLOR said like him he wants to see somebody producing something on it. Number 261 SENATOR GREEN referenced page 9, line 22, which is basically the beginning of a reversionary clause, and she said questioned why get back into reversionary clauses after spending two years getting out of one. MR. BENNETT related that S.660 would grant the University 250,000 acres of federal land, and in order to receive this land, the University must relinquish 11,852 of valuable inholdings in Alaska. The University would be eligible to receive an additional 250,000 acres of federal land on a matching basis with the state for a total of 500,000 additional acres. CHAIRMAN HALFORD questioned what happens if we don't want them to give up the only state land owned in those federal enclaves. MR. BENNETT responded that was a legislative call. SENATOR TORGERSON said in Section 6, it says the net income goes into the endowment trust fund, and he asked how the endowment works. WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, University of Alaska, explained that, by statute, the money goes into a land grant trust fund, and the earnings of the trust fund are what is extended. SENATOR GREEN referenced subsection (c) on page 10 and commented that you can't get to the money, that 20 percent of the income derived from the management of land selections for use on the closest campuses because, by law, all the proceeds go into the University trust fund. MS. REDMAN stated the University would not support that kind of amendment for a lot of reasons, primarily because the purpose of the natural resource fund is to support natural resource programs in Alaska. She said they try to expend the money where the faculty and staff exist. MS. REDMAN said this is the fourth version of this type of legislation that has been introduced over the years, and it is probably the cleanest version. However, she said there were a couple of things that were dropped in subsequent bills, and she had some amendments for the committee's consideration. There are two issues that are very important to the University. The first one is on proprietary information. The University is not covered the same way that the state is for the protection of proprietary information for people who wish to do leasing, etc., with them, and they would like to have that protection written into the bill. The second issue is tort immunity, and they feel it is important for them to have some sort of immunity while people are out doing their customary and traditional things on their land. Returning to Senator Green's reference to a reversionary clause on page nine, MS. REDMAN said that unless there was some strong reason for keeping that section in the bill, she would encourage that it be removed. She said they believe the University can get those lands into a productive and appropriate development for the state of Alaska. Number 498 SENATOR TAYLOR said he likes the provision in there to either "use it or lose it." He said he wants the University motivated to harvest the resources or else it might as well go back to the feds. MS. REDMAN said she thought the University's history of managing land is a lot better than DNR's history of managing land. CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented the fact is that the University has a strong constituency for preservation, and, if they are given the land without some kind of a push, they are probably not going to generate much money. Generating money takes active management, and it takes dealing with conflicts, it takes exploration, it takes access, numerous things that some people in the University's constituency don't like. MS. REDMAN said she didn't think he would see that if he would look at what the University has been doing in the last 10 years since they have had possession of their lands. Number 537 SENATOR LEMAN said if the University had a plan in place for use of the land, he didn't think the reversionary clause would be as much of a burden as was suggested. TAPE 98-37, SIDE B SENATOR LINCOLN moved an amendment to page 2, line 20, to delete "to the maximum extent practicable" so that it just says that the University of Alaska shall manage the land in a manner that permits customary and traditional uses of the resources of that land. SENATOR TORGERSON proposed as an amendment to the amendment to delete "manage" and insert "grant the use of" in its place. SENATOR TAYLOR proposed to delete after the word "shall" the phrase "manage the land in a manner that permits" and to insert the word "allow" in its place. SENATOR GREEN, speaking against the amendment, said on the one hand we're saying to take this land, develop it and make money, and on the other hand, we're saying they can't refuse letting anyone on the property for any reason. MS. REDMAN suggested that if that section was going to be left in the bill, she thought the way it was currently worded worked the best. CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated Senator Lincoln's motion to delete "to the maximum extent practicable" was before the committee. SENATOR GREEN objected. A hand vote was taken and the amendment failed on a 1-5 vote. Number 514 MS. REDMAN requested that the committee consider a conceptual amendment to subsection (c) on page 10, which provides that 20 percent of the income derived goes to the campus that is located within the closest proximity. She said it is a very troubling section to the University, however, she thinks they might be able to live with it if it were broadened to say "to support resource development within the region of the campus." SENATOR TAYLOR voiced his objection to the amendment. SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt a confidentiality amendment in the bill. Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted. SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt an immunity amendment to include the language in AS 09.65.200. Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted. Number 432 SENATOR GREEN stated she was still uncomfortable with the reversionary clause language. She moved as an amendment to page 9, beginning on line 22, to delete paragraph (1) in its entirety. CHAIRMAN HALFORD called for a show of hands on Senator Green's amendment, and by a 1-4 vote, the amendment failed. CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated the amendments adopted by the committee would be incorporated into a Resources CS. SENATOR TAYLOR moved CSSB 340(RES) be passed out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.