[BLANK_AUDIO] Sergeant at arms today Reggie Seals, Marvin Lee, David Latern/g, Randy Wall/g. Most of you know our staff Katrina, Rodney, John, Johnathan and welcome to the house finance committee. The first bill we'll take up is Senate Bill 508. >> Mr. Chairman I move that Senate Bill 508 be before the committee. >> A second is not necessary, the chair deems that the Bill without objection is before the the committee hearing non the bill is properly before the committee. Representative Turner your here to explain the bill. >> This bill has gone through many version but it is in a good place now. It terminates the [INAUDIBLE] The obligation under bail bonds, under specified circumstances required is a bond forfeiture judgement to be paid in full before a professional bail bondsman runner or bail agent listed on that bond can sign another bond. And the insurance commissioner's disciplinary authority over bail bondsman and runners is increased somewhat, gives them some flexibility there. It's a good bill I encourage your positive vote >> Mr. Chairman for a motion. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Representative Saine is recognized. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Chairman I move that this bill bill be [INAUDIBLE] favorable- >> Mr. Chairman. [CROSSTALK] I have an amendment. [BLANK_AUDIO] [ Representative Goodman at this point no one has the amendment. And so the chair would seek to clarify is the amendment that you're attempting to run an amendment for for another member. >> Mr. Chairman on the original I put my name on the amendment. Representative Lee was gonna run it but he's not here so am gonna run the amendment. [BLANK_AUDIO] Would that be the amendment S508 ATG 125 version 2? >> Yes Mr. Chairman that's it. >> [BLANK_AUDIO] The gentleman is recognized to sent forth the amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chair >> If the gentleman would yield. At this time the chair would like to make sure that all of the committee members have the relevant amendment before them. It appears that everyone has the amendment Representative Goodman you're recognized to explain the amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. This just says that this shall not apply to any federal taxing filed prior to this act becoming a law. Basically grandfathers and a bail bondsman who has a prior taxing before this law was filed. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> And at this point as protocol, it would probably be in order to let the gentle lady who is here to speak on the bill, respond to the amendment and speak. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think that it's important that our bill bonds men have a good reputation and part of that is to not have claims against them. That's the purpose in having this language in there about the bond forfeitures having to be cleaned up before, and paid before they are able to write other bonds, and it seems only natural to increase that to federal tax claims. Thank you Mr. Chairman. So, I encourage you to vote against the amendment. >> Okay. At this point the chair find that it would be helpful to have a member of the staff come in and explain the amendment. Mr. Patterson, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair members of the committee. Bill Patterson legislative analysis division. What this amendment would do on page two. Page two the section three, in sub-section D line 16. Sub section A. Expands the commissioner's existing authority to discipline persons who do not pay their state income taxes by giving the commissioner
the authority to discipline those who do not pay their federal income taxes. Now, what this amendment would do, is to make a change on line 12, where it says failure to comply within the administrative. Or court order directing payment of state or federal income tax. And change that to strike the words administrative or courts. So it would say, failure to comply with any order directing payment. The other change is to limit in section 3B, but add a new section 3B that would say basically this changed the additional authority to discipline people who don't pay their federal income tax is limited to persons who are licensed after the effective date of the act. Mr Chairman Mr. Chairman I think there's a- >> Give it light >> Okay. go ahead. >> First of all, who's seeking recognition? >> Mr. Chair I'm right here. >> Okay. Everybody For what purpose does Representative Hagar seek recognition? >> Just to point out. I think there's a mistake on the amendment, it says on page one line 12, I think that should read page two line 12. Is it right? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. Chair that is->> The Chair would recognize the staff member. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. >> That is correct, that is a typographical error for which I apologize. That should be on page two. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK AUDIO] Representative Hager. Thank you for pointing out that error and I think when we actually move the bill forward later we can make a provision there for any of the technicalities will be corrected. So that should not be an issue. And let's see, representative Hager has been recognized. Then we move to representative Stam to speak. >> Yes, there's been a grammatical ambiguity. And how its resolved depends whether I would vote for or against it. on line >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Page two line 13, it says after entry of a final judgement, now if that after entry of a final judgement applies to all the links I would vote against the amendment. That's an alternative where you could, just because they slap a lean on you before there's a final judgement, you could be kicked out. I'd be inclined to vote for the amendment. So what is the intention of the Bill and if so, if we could make that clear. >> Thank you Representative Stam and at this point, if Representative Davis could also come up and join in the debate and help us answer. And Representative Turner, Representative Davis is that question that you would prefer the staff to address? The Chair, I would recognize Mr. Pattison to address that concern. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm not sure that I can answer the question to the extent that it is asking what the intention of that change is, other than to say based upon my reading of it, it appears that the change made here to subsection 14d, was intended to simply add the failure to pay federal income tax to what is currently authorized as a basis for disciplinary action. Which is the failure to pay State income tax. I'm not sure that I understood the distinction or the ambiguity that Representative Stam was referring, to and I'm not sure if it was something that is caused by the proposed change or is present in the existing statutory language. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Are there any other members seeking recognition on the amendment? And out of protocol since Representative Stam has spoken at this point the chair would recognize Representative Collins and then we'll come back to Representative Stam. Then Representative Collins. >> Thank you. I generally don't like bills that are even written to benefit one
company, but it appears to me this amendment has been written to benefit one bad player. And so I would ask you to back up our Representative Turner here and defeat this amendment. >> And Representative Stam your recognized. >> Well yes the ambiguity is in the existing language, but whether or not you perhaps should be have grandfather thing depends on whether that is really a lane that's after an [INAUDIBLE] final judgement. Or whether it's just put on by the IRS administratively which they can do. So the sponsors would tell us, which they intend then we can fix the ambiguity. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Senator Lee, welcome to the finance committee sir >> Mr. Chair my apologies. >> And you are welcome to join in and help explain any of the provisions about the amendment. We're on the amendment at this particular point. >> I think the intend behind adding was not necessary at what point the lean attach but if a lean resulted from a failure to comply at what point there in that process whether it's administrative or otherwise. It gave the commissioner the flexibility to look at the facts and make a determination. It's similar what they would do for a state income tax lean. >> And at this point the Chair would recognize Representative Hamilton. No longer seeking recognition. >> Okay. And the Chair would recognize Representative Jordan >> I have a question, maybe it's for staff. >> That would be in order sir. >> Thank you sir. Is there an x plus factor issue here if we don't amend the Bill? [BLANK_AUDIO] At this point the chair would recognize the staff to answer the question. Representative Jordan, the Chair apologizes, the chair was tied up in a procedural issue. Was your question regarding a express post factor issue. >> Yes Representative Pattison. [LAUGH] >> No Mr chair but I'll be happy to answer as staff. If the question is with regard to this additional authority to discipline for the failure to pay federal income tax? Is that the question whether that is? >> Yes, sir. >> Well this section is effective when it becomes law, and I think that, the question would be, if a question is whether the commission is being given authority to discipline somebody for an event that has occurred in the past. And at the time that the person failed to pay the federal income taxes, that person did not know that to do so would expose that person to disciplinary authority. I think the answer is that I don't think it's an ex post facto issue, but I think it's just a policy question as to whether or not persons who have engaged in that activity ought to be shielded from disciplinary action taken by the commissioner with respect to their licensing status. and that was a light hearted quip Mr. Patterson. But you are qualified to be a representative. >> Mr. Chairman, if I may comment as well. >> The gentleman is recognized. >> The idea wasn't really even a disciplinary proceeding, the idea is that when a bail bondsman essentially an insurance company and they're pledging essentially credit that they are going to return the defendant back if the defendant does not return. So if you look at it from an underwriting perspective where you go and get a loan from a bank or anyone else who's making a credit decision. You are looking at these factors and the reason that there's a may instead of a shall it's cuz sometimes there are extenuating factors as to why Aline/g is out there. Some were brought up in previous House committee meeting as well, and that's why we've got the discretion there within the commission. >> Okay, thank you. Chairman Saine you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. My question is for the Bill of sponsor while I'm enjoying this [INAUDIBLE] do you support the amendment or not?
>> I do not. >> Thank you. >> The chair deems that we've had a very open discussion, we do have one more member seeking recognition and that would be I think Representative Bishop if you're still seeking recognition, you're recognized sir. >> I am Mr. Chairman. I would like to pose a question to Representative Stam if he would yield. >> And a question regarding the amendment would be in order. If Representative Stan yields. >> Yes. >> Representative Stam you seem to be saying that you would support the amendment unless the original bill text is only operative after the entry of a final judgement. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes but I haven't said the converse that I wouldn't support it without it, but when is the bill effective by the way? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Well if its if it's not till December one then maybe, I'd support it anyway, you need to give them some time to clean up the records. If they've already got something , this actually happens. The IRS sometimes slaps leans on people that they really don't owe taxes. And they're bad for that actually. >> May I make a brief statement then Mr. Chairman? >> That would be in order Representative Bishop. >> And I'm trying to make sure I'm not missing something here. I think in most instances tax collection assessment gets made by the Taxing Authority and then if there's not payment then they'll file lean and they'll come and take your property based on the finding of the lean. If it's not invariable to the case if there is a court battle after that. So I would think that you couldn't limit the operational thing until after there's been a court order and litigation it's final. because many times the path doesn't go that way. So I think I oppose the amendment. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Representative Stam. >> i think seeing the effective date would give somewhat a sufficient time to clean up acts so I withdraw my objection to that. >> The chair would dim at this point it is probably time to take a vote on the amendment. The amendment is before you, those in favor would vote by saying aye. >> Aye.>> Those oppose no, >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it and we are back on the bill as not amended. Mr chairman or a motion. >> Chairman, Saine you're recognized. >> I move that we give senate bill 508 a favorable without a committee. >> And, Chairman Saine Representative Davis is seeking to clarify what one of the points if that's agreeable. >> To this bill that we get out of this committee a lot quicker if we can get to this motion. But whatever he would like to do. >> The only reason I wanted to seek recognition and thank you, Mr. Chairman is that my part of this bill deals with the criminal mediation fee. If anybody has any question I'll be glad to answer it. Thank you very much. Probably one of my best presentations. Thank you. >> The honorable Representative Jordan is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to note the section three is one of those that becomes effective when it becomes law. There's no December date. To meet. >> Thank you for the clarification and the motion is before us. You've all heard the motion. The motion is for a favorable to the House committee substitute unfavorable as to the original. >> Mr. Chairman, is this This is not a PCS. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> There's information on the front page where the Chair saw that apparently is not valid at this point. So the motion that Chairman Saine made is in order. and it is before us, those in favor would vote by saying aye. >> Ayes. >> Those opposed saying no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The bill receives a favorable report. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman- >> Committee and audience at the request of chairman Browley and chairman Saine and the other chairs. Before we go into recess. >> We still making this announcement. Right? >> Before we go into recess, let me recognize- >> Yeah. >> Chairman Browley to make an announcement. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. The speaker has informed us that the technical corrections bill is being prepared. been prepared and will be reported out we will recess for 45 minutes and then we'll take it up. That will be a PCS for senate,
just may be senate bill 821. This is the conference committee report and there are some sections that require action by the finance committee. Thank you Mr. Chairman. [CROSS TALK] >> Committee and the members of the committee, let's clarify this announcement just a little bit more, we'll go into recess for 45 minutes and so that way everybody has proper notice as to when to return and Representative Lukie is recognized. >> Yes, just a clarification Mr. chairman, is it your understanding then that we would actually not go back in session at 3.30 to do work or? I mean we are scheduled to reconvene at 3.30, are we not? >> Well, the >> The gentleman is correct if he is in possession of all the information that I've been giving, >> Thank you very much. >> And as the long serving member knows, we probably we would receive sufficient notice when we go back to session, thank you sir. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> The chair of rules, the assumption is that rules will be meeting, that's an assumption by the chair. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Rules was noticed for after finance. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> The chair would recommend that you contact the rules chairman.