2-28 House Committee amended to appropriations (2)

Home Browse Search

2-28 House Committee amended to appropriations-1 Page 14 of 19 Male # 7: Madame Chair: Female #2: Madame Chair: Rep. PelllY Madame Chair: Rep. Hoppy: (O.flMic) Madame Chair: Representative Penry and I talked about, if that's okay with the Committee, we understand that. Okay, I think what we've got here is a conceptual amendment if everyone's following that, on Line 8, there would be sunset language inserted after the word article. So we've got an amendment to amendment L005 and we have a motion and a second. Is there any objection to this amendment, this conceptual amendment to L005? I don't see any objection so it's adopted, but let's get caught up. I'm still unclear. What is the date? It's gonna relate back to that date. So the date will be - okay. You okay. I'd like to offer another conceptual amendment, and I apologize that this is not drafted, but hopefi.Jlly we can follow it. To amendment L005 I move that we change the date on Line 4 to July 1, 2006. Second Discussion. Representative Penry I just want to say I'm fine with this amendment because if the Interbasin Compact Committee wants to report back sooner they can under the language. The language says not later than. So giving them a little extra time, especially now that we have a sunset is appropriate. If they are able to form their charter quicker. Nothing in this bill would prohibit them from doing that, so I support the amendment. Representative Hoppy Madame Chair, thank you. Can I ask if the staff can form the Rose amendment to this amendment if this amendment is done? That'd make me happy too, if we could do that. Okay. Yes. FUliher discussion? Okay, we are just talking now about changing that date, everybody, on Line 4 to amendment L005. Is there any objection to this amendment? Is there any objection to that change? Okay, seeing none, that's adopted. Let's go back to L005 then as amended. I think we had a motion and a second, and correct me if I'm wrong everybody, okay. And is there fi.lrther discussion then? All right, seeing none, is there any objection to amendment L005 as amended? Seeing none, www.escriptionist.com Page 14 of 19