HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES April 12, 1993 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Carl E. Moses, Chairman Representative Harley Olberg, Vice-Chairman Representative Irene Nicholia Representative Gail Phillips MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Cliff Davidson COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 264 "An Act providing for a fishery resource landing tax; and providing for an effective date." CS HB 264 (FSH) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION WITNESS REGISTER Joe Blum, Executive Director American Factory Trawlers Association 4039 21st Avenue West, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98199 Phone: 206-285-5139 Position Statement: No Position yet on HB 264 Karl Ohls, Fisheries Development Specialist Bering Sea Fishermen's Association 725 Christiansen Drive Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 279-6519 Position Statement: Supports HB 264 Frank Kelty, Mayor City of Unalaska P.O. Box 89 Unalaska, AK 99685 Phone: 581-1251 Position Statement: Supports HB 264 Linda Kozak Kodiak Longline Vessel Owners Association 326 Center Street, #202 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Phone: 486-3781 Position Statement: Supports HB 264, but has some concerns Brian Bergman, Harbormaster City of Sitka 304 Lake Street Sitka, AK 99835 Phone: 747-3439 Position Statement: Supports HB 264 Dewey Schwalenberg, Executive Director Bering Sea Commercial Fisheries Development Foundation 1577 C Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 263-9881 Position Statement: Companies that make contributions to non-profit corporations should receive a tax credit Richard "Rick" Lauber, Lobbyist Pacific Seafood Processors Association 321 Highland Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 586-6366 Position Statement: Will not support HB 264 in current form Mike Szymanski Governmental Affairs Representative Fishing Company of Alaska P.O. Box 210587 Anchorage, AK 99521 Phone: 563-9188 Position Statement: Opposes HB 264 Bob Juettner, Administrator Aleutians East Borough 1600 "A" Street #103 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 274-7553 Position Statement: Supports HB 264 Carl A. Meyer, Chief of Appeals Income and Excise Audit Division Alaska State Department of Revenue P.O. Box 110420 Juneau, AK 99811-0420 Phone: 465-2343 Position Statement: Commented on the definition of value with regard to HB 264 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 264 SHORT TITLE: FISHERY RESOURCE LANDING TAX BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): RULES TITLE: "An Act providing for a fishery resource landing tax; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/30/93 854 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/30/93 854 (H) FISHERIES, FINANCE 04/05/93 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17 04/12/93 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17 ACTION NARRATIVE Tape 93-21, Side A Number 000 CHAIRMAN CARL MOSES called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m., noted himself and Representative Olberg in attendance, stated that the meeting was on teleconference and said that HB 264, establishing a fisheries resource landing tax, was on the agenda. He then asked Mr. Joe Blum to begin his testimony from Seattle. HB 264: FISHERY RESOURCE LANDING TAX JOE BLUM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE AMERICAN FACTORY TRAWLERS ASSOCIATION (AFTA), testifying from Seattle, stated the offshore processors often feel that investments by themselves and financial partners are not treated as contributing toward Alaska's economic well-being. The people of Alaska, including state legislators, understand the level of economic activity produced by AFTA. For example, in 1990, the last year that AFTA has complete information, the offshore sector provided over $120 million to Alaska's economic health. Included were taxes of $5.4 million, payroll of $7 million, other expenses of $2.3 million, $8.7 million devoted to storage of materials, $7.9 million for transportation, $3.4 million for groceries and sundries, $14.4 million for maintenance and repair of AFTA equipment, $59.7 million for fuel and lubricants, and miscellaneous expenses totalling $12.6 million. This adds up to an excess of $120 million, he noted. Number 065 MR. BLUM stated that in 1991, AFTA created the Bering Sea Commercial Fisheries Development Foundation for the purpose of assisting in the creation of opportunities for the residents of western Alaska to engage in the commercial fishing industry, in the harvesting and processing sectors. He pointed out AFTA members support the foundation through assessments against every ton of fish retained from the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. By the end of 1992, over $680,000 had been contributed to the foundation from AFTA members. MR. BLUM disclosed the first project undertaken by the foundation was an aggressive training program through which over 100 western Alaska residents were recruited for special training programs, conducted by the Alaska Vocational Training Center in Seward. Graduates of the training program were then offered employment aboard AFTA vessels. By the end of 1992, over 100 western Alaskans had been recruited, trained, and employed by the offshore industry. MR. BLUM anticipated upwards of 300 graduates from the program in 1993. Six offshore companies are currently engaged in projects with community development quota (CDQ) communities in western Alaska, from Atka to the Pribilofs. Those projects generate nearly $20 million per year in income and other benefits. As a result, western Alaska residents should have the expertise to develop the infrastructure necessary to establish a viable commercial fishing industry in their area. In Alaska, for 1990, the AFTA fleet created more than 800 jobs; the average wage of those jobs was $27,000. Entry level wages for 60-day trips, are as much as $20,000. He advised that AFTA does business with companies in Anchorage, Kodiak, Dutch Harbor and Unalaska. MR. BLUM confirmed that AFTA has not yet taken a position on HB 264, in connection with the proposed tax on processed seafood products landed in the state. Despite current rumors to the contrary and the statements by certain Alaskan officials, AFTA has not taken a position on HB 264, he reiterated. He stressed that AFTA has not signed off on the bill, nor have they hired an attorney or anyone else to fight HB 264; however, AFTA has urged the administration to request a formal legal opinion from the state Attorney General's office, detailing the jurisdictional basis upon which the state would be exercising taxing authority over seafood products that were harvested and processed in federal waters outside the state of Alaska. MR. BLUM added that such an opinion should demonstrate the legality of such a tax in terms of the significant constitutional issues involved; for example, how does the taxing plan mesh with the U.S. Constitutional Commerce Clause? The reasonableness and fairness of any proposed tax would be a significant factor in AFTA's ultimate decision on how to respond to such legislation. MR. BLUM then stated that the key factors in determining fairness would include the following questions: Does the tax fairly reflect the burden that AFTA members' operations in the state place on state resources; for example, water, sewer, hospitals, schools, roads, docks and other state and municipal services as compared with other components in the seafood industry? Another key factor is whether the tax places AFTA members at a competitive disadvantage, compared to other sectors of the industry. MR. BLUM noted two additional questions: Is the value of the product being taxed the same for all sectors and is the rate of the tax higher on AFTA operations? Will the legislation provide the tax credit for office contributions to the Bering Sea Commercial Fisheries Development Foundation and other related investments? After reviewing these considerations, AFTA will review HB 264 with the accompanying legal analysis, and then will decide which position it will take on the bill. MR. BLUM re-emphasized that AFTA has not taken a position at this point. The key threshold issue that the legislature and the administration need to address is the legal basis for such a tax. If this issue is not addressed, many questions will be raised that could have easily been dealt with in a substantive Attorney General's opinion, he concluded. Number 170 CHAIRMAN MOSES thanked Mr. Blum for his testimony, noted Representative Nicholia's entrance at 5:11 p.m., and invited Mr. Karl Ohls to testify from Anchorage. Number 182 KARL OHLS, FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST FOR THE BERING SEA FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, testifying from Anchorage via teleconference, stated that he was representing three of the companies in the Association: The Coastal Village Fishing Cooperative, the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation and the Yukon Delta Fishery Development Association. All three are CDQ corporations formed for the purpose of applying for and harvesting CDQ quotas in the Bering Sea. The three entities support the concept of the landing tax. The corporations have looked at HB 264 and have a suggested change to the version of HB 264 dated 4/12/93. The amendment would allow a taxpayer to get credits for contributions to non-profit corporations to use the funds for scholarships, training, capital contributions and infrastructure. The amendment would be inserted on page four, line nine of HB 264, to correlate between purposes of the tax credit and the funds that are shared with the municipalities. MR. OHLS stated the reasons the above companies support the amendment is that there is precedent for the legislature to provide tax credits, similar to the ones outlined in the amendment. Another reason is to establish fishing economies in communities; the credit would not affect the amount of tax the fishing companies would pay. Fisheries' infrastructure developing in coastal communities will result in more fishery resources landed in Alaska, and more revenue for the state. The CDQ fisheries will provide revenues to the general fund that is equal to the amount provided by any other offshore fishing activity. Several CDQ fishing enterprises are now contributing revenues directly to the state through the fisheries business tax, the state corporate income tax and through self-assessment of the fisheries business tax. MR. OHLS further stated that a landing tax is appropriate, however, this amendment will provide an added benefit to the state and the CDQ communities as a source of funding for governmental-style services that are essential for the success of the CDQ business. In response to the fiscal impact, the CDQ pollack tax, at three percent will be approximately $600,000. A 50% tax credit would amount to $300,000 available for western Alaska communities, he believed. Number 284 CHAIRMAN MOSES asked if there were questions. Hearing none, testimony continued from Unalaska. Number 286 FRANK KELTY, MAYOR OF UNALASKA, testifying via teleconference, stated that the City of Unalaska supports HB 264. The existing state of Alaska shared raw fish tax programs were created for sharing half the amount of state fisheries business tax revenue, left from in-state fish processing, with municipalities. Fish processed at sea, and landed or transferred within the state is not subject to state or local taxes. The off-shore fish processing sector has a significant presence in coastal communities, with activities ranging from transferring processed fish products, changing crews, taking on fuel and supplies, and discarding waste. The offshore sector also has a substantial financial impact on local governments, including increased maintenance requirements, local transportation, medical and public safety services and expanding recreational and educational programs. MR. KELTY further said that the city of Unalaska, in FY 92, generated approximately $14 million in general fund revenues. Of that, $6 million was derived from the raw fish tax collected locally and from the shared fish tax collected from the shore-based plants. The factory trawlers operating outside state waters are not subject to state or local fish tax and have few investments onshore that are subject to property taxes. If offshore processors are considered for tax-credit, then shoreside processors who make contributions should also get tax-credits. Number 336 CHAIRMAN MOSES thanked Mayor Kelty and moved testimony to Kodiak. LINDA KOZAK, KODIAK LONGLINE VESSEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION (KLVOA), testifying from Kodiak, advised that the association has one catcher/processor longline vessel that would be impacted by a landing tax. The KLVOA is generally supportive of HB 264, but has some concerns. The first is safety; many vessels would try to off-load out of state waters to get around paying the landing tax, and there could be problems with safety due to the weather. MS. KOZAK stated that additionally, there is concern with the definition of "value" of the fishery resource. The value is currently defined as the lesser of two values - the market value or the statewide average price. A better definition may be the statewide average, and then add in the words "ex-vessel price, paid in the year for the fisheries resource as reported to..." This amendment may alleviate some concern if fishermen know they might get hit with a double tax if the market value is higher than the ex-vessel value. MS. KOZAK further stated that the landing tax is very important to Alaska and that the KLVOA supports the concept. Number 365 CHAIRMAN MOSES thanked Ms. Kozak for her testimony and moved to Sitka to hear from Brian Bergman. Number 367 BRIAN BERGMAN, HARBORMASTER FOR THE CITY OF SITKA, testified from Sitka. He stated that the City of Sitka supports HB 264. The bill addresses a loophole in the current fisheries business tax, and the City of Sitka feels that all vessels should pay on the same level. The 3.3% assessment puts the American Factory Trawlers Association on the same playing level as the smaller, traditional hook and line fisherman, he concluded. Number 380 DEWEY SCHWALENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE BERING SEA COMMERCIAL FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION (BSDF), testified via teleconference. He said that the foundation is more than a training program; it has worked on longline projects, supported the CDQ program, worked to support a local fish processing plant, and worked with the fish marketing program for chum salmon. MR. SCHWALENBERG added that tax-credits should be provided for companies that make contributions like those previously listed. For each $2,000 spent on students who get jobs in the industry, $8,000 is turned directly around to the community. The state legislature should look into the use of foundations, trusts, and endowments for direct benefit for the social welfare activities of community residents. There are many things lacking at the fisherman's level, like pension plans, disability programs, investment programs and marketing plans for their products; all of these are served by a foundation, he concluded. Number 450 CHAIRMAN MOSES added that contributing too much to the projects mentioned would detract from the amount invested for the expansion of airports and infrastructure that the offshore trawlers need to operate successfully. He then asked if there was anyone else on teleconference or in person that would like to testify. RICK LAUBER, LOBBYIST FOR THE PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION said that his is a trade association that processes between 85-90% of the seafood caught and landed in Alaskan waters. Historically, the seafood processing industry has been a taxpayer. MR. LAUBER stated he would support HB 264 in its current form if it was fair; the only fair part about the bill is "the 3.3% tax, which is the equal part that the in-state processors currently pay. Currently, the floaters operating in the waters near Dutch Harbor pay a 5% tax, not 3%. Plus they would pay a 2% tax to the City of Unalaska for a higher percentage. The floaters in Bristol Bay pay 5% plus another 3% to the Bristol Bay Borough. Floaters in King Cove pay the 5% tax plus a double tax for the municipality, and one for the borough that totals 9%." MR. LAUBER further said, "This legislation calls upon the factory trawlers and they will tell you whether they agree to this tax, at some future time, presumably after they have delayed it for another year or two, which will cost the state somewhere around $11 million per year while they're deciding whether or not they will agree to this tax. So I think the only thing you need to do as far as the amount, is not consider whether it is fair to the fishing industry and the fishermen and processors operating inshore." MR. LAUBER said, "The other thing that the inshore operators, and this is not a tax of course, but certainly a cost of doing business, is that the floaters that do not comply with the same OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations, the safety regulations that we do, they don't comply with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and they don't have the air quality problems or the water quality problems that we do. They don't comply with the Clean Air Act, or the Clean Water Act. So...I think the first thing you need to consider is increasing the tax." MR. LAUBER continued, "Now, one of the things by the way, they're asking for is a tax credit, and I think they should be entitled, and I would suggest that they would be entitled to have the tax credit, the same tax credit the inshore processors have, as they're paying 5%, not half of their tax, not 50%, but 5% of the tax into the memorial scholarship fund for persons wishing to engage in fisheries- related activities; HB 264 should be amended to allow them to do that." MR. LAUBER stated further that the state, not the non- resident factory trawler, should decide who gets the taxes and what contributions to non-profit corporations are allowed. He said, "AFTA has attempted to destroy the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC). The AFTA would like to see the NPFMC dominated by Washington state residents; attempts have been made to destroy the Alaskan majority on the council; AFTA fought the inshore allocation which would have deleted all Alaskan pollock fisheries onshore and moved these fisheries offshore." MR. LAUBER continued, "One of the issues brought up is that if we increase the tax, then trawlers will off-load at sea. They are going to run on their last load anyway; in fact, they have already. Last year, a number of them ran from Alaska to Japan and off-loaded; many of them run to Seattle already. The last load, you're not going to get any taxes, whether it's 1% or 50%, they're going to load it someplace else; or the vast majority of them are. As far as the others are concerned, you cannot off-load on the high-seas. You must come in to sheltered waters where there are conveyors and get rid of that product as fast as you can on the trampers and get back out there and get fishing, so they can't off-load at sea." Maybe at some future time, MR. LAUBER said, "when there is no olympic system, they might be able to, but don't believe them when they tell you that. The other thing that needs attention, was the language on the taxability. Ms. Kozak's language would be a good compromise, and that would be to use the statewide average. By using the lesser of the ones, you never quite get there; you need one definition. The other thing is...the fish need to be weighed. Every pound of fish in Alaska is sold by weight. The processor who buys the fish must buy it on certified scales." MR. LAUBER continued, "A product recovery rate must be used as it is an estimate of how much fish you originally caught. Without weighing the fish, we are at the mercy of the factory trawlers to tell us how much their product recovery rates are. We need to have a requirement that all their fish must be weighed. All the domestic processors have scales, and you won't get your tax dollars without scales." MR. LAUBER further said, "With two major changes, a fair tax of 5% or 5.3%, and the fish should be weighed, like the domestic processors have to buy their fish, then the NPFMC could support this legislation." Number 591 CHAIRMAN MOSES called Mike Szymanski to testify. MIKE SZYMANSKI, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE FISHING COMPANY OF ALASKA (FCA), advised that he would provide the committee with a prepared statement tomorrow, April 13th, 1993. He advised members that the FCA was formed in 1984 in Seward, Alaska, and pioneered the Americanization of the rockfish head and gut fishery off the coast of Alaska. The FCA currently produces gross product sales of approximately $85 million, and net sales of approximately $60 million. Number 600 MR. SZYMANSKI said, "The FCA sells product directly in Japan and FOB Dutch. Sales don't go to the domestic market; we work in a fishery that markets abroad because the species is not domestically consumed. The species is not marketed in the U.S., but it is a significant product to the foreign countries, particularly Japan, where it is sold. The industry became available when the Magnuson Act went into effect. The company was formed and has grown to employ 300- 400 people working in Seward, Dutch Harbor and Seattle. The product is caught and processed outside Alaska's taxing jurisdiction and the FCA vessels off-load to trampers. Sometimes the trampers do not sell immediately because the price has fallen such that it is not profitable to sell. The margin is fairly narrow." MR. SZYMANSKI further said, "When vessels off-load to trampers in sheltered bays, sometimes there is not even an ownership transfer. The FCA questions the legality of the 3.3% tax, as oftentimes when there is a transfer from one vessel to another, there is no product change or conditioning. It is simply transferring the product from one icebox to another." TAPE 93-21, SIDE B Number 000 MR. SZYMANSKI further noted that "if the state was allowed to impose such a tax on factory trawlers, why couldn't such a condition be imposed on Federal Express?...I highly question whether or not you would have the jurisdiction to do that than you would on vessels which catch outside the same jurisdiction. There is a legal side of the issue which has been brushed over; the taxation may not be justified. The vessels, like the cargo planes, only enter the state's taxing jurisdiction, but have no relationship to any of the available state services. Many of the transfers occur in remote bays in Alaska." MR. SZYMANSKI claimed that "if such a proposed tax was levied, it may be construed to violate the implied limitations for prohibition on Congressional authority to regulate foreign commerce. Simply put, Congress never intended, or never allowed a state to regulate foreign commerce. It is significant from our company's perspective because many times our products will go in for secondary processing in Korea and then be sold back into the United States as a final filleted product. Looking at this measure (HB 264)...its legality and the state's regulation of interstate commerce needs to be scrutinized against the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause three, section eight, article one. The Clause was designed to put a check and balance and specifically, impose when a state attempts to impose business activities to multiple, taxable liability and regulatory actions. MR. SZYMANSKI said, "There needs to be a substantial analysis of this legislation to determine whether or not it can meet the commerce clause test. Does the simple transferring of product, subject to tax, have a substantial nexus with the taxing state of Alaska? Does the tax discriminate or impede interstate commerce? What relationship exists, if any to service this claim to be provided by the state of Alaska? Is this proposed tax fairly imposed, as related to other states? In other words, do we get one tax, upon another tax, when it's transferred? If those tests come back, then you'll know the answers to whether or not it's going to be legal and a foundation for the tax. But I think those questions need to be asked." MR. SZYMANSKI further said "it's imperative that the legal foundation be established, because as you probably have been briefed, there's some question as to whether or not any of those tests would be supportive. With regard to the impact of this action on our company, the Fishing Company of Alaska (FCA) is operating at a loss in the competitive market today, and could not support a $2.5 to $3.5 million tax. In simple terms, we cannot impose this tax, downstream, on the market; its a supply and demand market, not a cost plus market. The tax will be taken out of any profits, right off the top, and several of the fisheries that the FCA operates are not profitable." MR. SZYMANSKI disclosed, "The FCA plans to sell products today at half the price of last year, in 1992; therefore, reserves will be eaten away. In response to weighing the product, scales can be installed in vessels, at a cost of $40,000 per unit, but the FCA maintains a very close record by pound, and the FCA sells by the pound. The committee should consider the following legal questions associated with the legislation (HB 264), or the legislation will have a difficult time being supported or upheld in a court system." Number 160 CHAIRMAN MOSES asked what the FCA did with garbage when its vessels entered a harbor or stopped by an island outside of a municipality to transfer product to trampers. MR. SZYMANSKI replied that "many times, we can do both ways with it. The trampers actually take garbage with them and other times, it'll be transferred at the same time as fiber is moved off of them. Fiber being packing boxes and other material." CHAIRMAN MOSES further asked, "Do you transfer your crews at that time too?" MR. SZYMANSKI replied, "Most of the time we maintain them for the full cruise, but we pay about a million, five, to Mark Air and to Alaska Airlines, many times to move them back and forth to Dutch Harbor...so I assume Mark Air wants to stay in business, too." CHAIRMAN MOSES stated that "quite often, the trawlers will dump the undesirable crew members off and leave them stranded on the beach without money...what do you do with yours, on your boats?" MR. SZYMANSKI replied, "I've never had that problem. It seems like they, uh, uh, always get back home. We've, uh, the only time we've ever had a problem on that is usually weather, as you're familiar with that, and then we ended up paying them. And I appreciate you bringing up that fact, you know, you talk about the cost, when we're sitting out there, and the reason our operating costs get extremely high, when a fishing season is shut down early, or a quota is taken, or we get into bad weather, we have to continue to pay our crews. You don't send them home and tell them that the processing lines are shut down. They're there and getting paid." CHAIRMAN MOSES asked, "When you have a sick or injured crew member, does the tramper take care of those, too?" MR. SZYMANSKI replied, "Most of the time, you end up with the Coast Guard and/or, we pay about $20-$30,000 to medi- vac, on average. I've never known anybody outside the Coast Guard or contracted medi-vac to support us. Are you familiar with anybody? I'm not familiar with anybody that has ever provided any type of medi-vac services other than that." CHAIRMAN MOSES stated that the vessels utilize the clinic at Dutch Harbor. Number 208 BOB JUETTNER, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH (AEB), estimated that $150 million worth of product will be landed by June 30, 1993 within the AEB. The AEB sees no benefit from HB 264 because all products in the borough are caught, delivered and processed within AEB communities. The AEB does support HB 264, however, because offshore processing has immediate and drastic impacts on local governments. In Dutch Harbor, at the beginning and end of the season, the impacts are higher operating costs to the city for public safety, medical services and transportation. These impacts are also felt on the state of Alaska, as the state pays for some of the road maintenance, airport crews and additional public safety officers in Dutch Harbor. The offshore industry also benefits from Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) promotions. MR. JUETTNER said that as communities build up the infrastructure to handle these impacts, they get stuck with the fixed overhead costs. Natural resource stocks do crash every 10 years or so; if the salmon industry crashes, Unalaska will have huge overhead expenses associated with their facilities. VICE CHAIR HARLEY OLBERG made the MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 264 (FSH). Without objections, CSHB 264(FSH) was ADOPTED. Representative Gail Phillips entered at 6:11 p.m. CHAIRMAN MOSES asked Mr. Meyer to enlighten the committee on the definition of value. Number 282 CARL MEYER, CHIEF OF APPEALS FOR THE INCOME & EXCISE AUDIT DIVISION OF THE ALASKA STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, stated the provision in HB 264 for the definition of value is in two parts. The first was designed to compare the actual market value resource at the time it became subject to tax to the statewide average price. The intent was to equate the value for the landing tax to the value that would be paid by those fisheries businesses that were paying the fisheries business tax (FBT). The FBT is based on an un- processed product, whereas the landed tax provision is based on a product already processed. The taxes are not directly comparable, and the use of value is an intent to have the two taxes be based on equivalent values, he concluded. Number 327 CHAIRMAN MOSES asked if there was discussion on CSHB 264 (FSH). VICE CHAIR OLBERG MOVED to PASS CSHB 264 (FSH) out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. Without objections, CSHB 264(FSH) was MOVED with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN MOSES adjourned the committee at 6:15 p.m.