House Committee on Business Affairs and Labor (02/06/2006)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND LABOR

Date:	02/06/2006	ATTENDANCE

Time:	01:40 PM to 07:18 PM	Balmer	X
		Borodkin	X
Place:	HCR 0107	Butcher	*
		Carroll M.	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Coleman	X
	Representative Marshall	Knoedler	X
		Liston	X
This Report was prepared by		McCluskey	X
	Christie Lee	Paccione	X
		Penry	X
		Welker	X
		Cerbo	X
		Marshall	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
HB06-1144 HB06-1115 HB06-1030 HB06-1044 HB06-1174 HB06-1036 HB06-1055 HB06-1119		Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Referred to the Committee of the Whole Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Witness Testimony Only Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole

01:42 PM -- House Bill 06-1144

Representative Marshall called the committee to order and announced to the committee that there were eight bills to be heard and for witnesses to keep testimony directed at the bill, and to not repeat any previous testimony. House Bill 1144 would make it so that if employers follow all the rules, train their employees in accordance with the law, and have no previous violations, they would not have their liquor license suspended because an employee sold alcohol to a minor. Representative Marshall explained that House Bill 1144 was in the middle of testimony on Friday, February 3, when the bill was laid over. Representative May stated that he had not opening comments and would like to continue testimony.

01:42 PM -- Pete Meersman, representing the Colorado Restaurant Association, testified in support of the bill. He stated that not every violation should be penalized the same as occurs in Douglas County. Mr. Meersman gave an example of when the Macaroni Grill's license that was suspended for selling to a minor even though there are over 100 employees working there. He was asked to clarify if most of the violations are mistakes on the part of the server, to which he stated yes. The committee mentioned that statute already allows for mitigating factors, Mr. Meersman agreed, but explained that every jurisdiction does not take into consideration server training, like Douglas County for example. There was committee discussion on the effects of a license suspension on the other employees in the restaurant.

01:55 PM -- Tim Schmidt, representing Hacienda Colorado Restaurants, testified in support of the bill. He explained that the employee turnover rate in the restaurant industry is high and that the average age of the employees is between 18 and 28. He described the training that the employees receive related to underage serving. He stated that there was one violation from an employee at one of the restaurants he represents where the employee failed to read the ID and explained the consequences on the business and the other employees. Mr. Schmidt stated the businesses are self regulated and are handling the problem themselves.

02:05 PM -- John Ziegler, representing Jackson's Sports Grills, testified in support of the bill. He stated that he had helped create the model guidelines concerning compliance checks for underage alcohol sales that have been referred to previously. He stated that in all cases where alcohol has been served to a minor, it was a momentary lapse on the server's part. He was asked what he felt an appropriate penalty for a first time offense. Mr. Ziegler responded.

02:19 PM -- Gary Moss, representing the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, testified against the bill. He read a statement from the association. There was committee discussion about mitigating factors and how they are taken into account under the current statute.

02:27 PM

Representative May responded to the committee's discussion stating that all the bill does is codify the rules that certain jurisdictions fail to follow.

02:28 PM -- Chuck Ford, representing the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association, testified in support of the bill. He encouraged support of the legislation stating that local control is not consistent across the state. There was a question from the committee about whether there have been second offenses under the current statute. Mr. Ford stated that he does not feel that is true, and explained that many companies have been shut down due to multiple violations. He added that many of his members agree with the Restaurant Association's position.

02:32 PM -- Matt Cook, Director of the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division, Colorado Department of Revenue, responded to the rate of second offenses. He stated that when the model guidelines were put together, there was a 49 percent noncompliance rate, and that last year there was a 25 percent noncompliance rate. Mr. Cook added that the repeat offender rate runs 33 percent across the state. In response to committee questions, Mr. Cook stated there is some action against the liquor license in most cases and that a fine cannot occur against an establishment unless a suspension is imposed.

02:38 PM -- Dave Thomas, representing the Colorado District Attorney's Council, stated that the bill as originally drafted was opposed by the Council but that now, after the strike below, they have no current position. He was asked to clarify his original opposition.

02:39 PM -- Tony Lombard, representing Colorado Counties Incorporated (CCI), testified in opposition to the bill and stated that CCI has no position on the strike below amendment.

02:40:24 PM

There was committee discussion about an amendment proposed by Representative Balmer on page 2 line 3, strike "may" and substitute "shall". After committee discussion Representative Balmer withdrew his amendment.


BILL:	HB06-1144
TIME:	02:42:15 PM
MOVED:	Balmer
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.005 (Attachment A). Representative May explained the strike below amendment. He stated that the mitigating factors should be taken into account in each case. There was committee discussion about what parties were opposed and in support of the bill. The motion passed 11-2.
SECONDED:	Liston
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Borodkin	No
	Butcher	Yes
	Carroll M.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Knoedler	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	McCluskey	Yes
	Paccione	No
	Penry	Yes
	Welker	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Marshall	Yes
Not Final YES: 11 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	HB06-1144
TIME:	02:56:47 PM
MOVED:	Balmer
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1144, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 8-5.
SECONDED:	Liston
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Borodkin	No
	Butcher	Yes
	Carroll M.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Knoedler	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	McCluskey	Yes
	Paccione	No
	Penry	No
	Welker	Yes
	Cerbo	No
	Marshall	No
Final YES: 8 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PAS

02:58 PM -- House Bill 06-1115

Representative May, prime sponsor, explained that House Bill 1115 clarifies language regarding advertising for rental car companies and when they do and do not have to disclose information regarding the collision damage waiver rates.

03:00 PM -- Jane Hylen, General Manager of Enterprise Rent-A-Car, testified in support of the bill. She gave a brief statement about the current law that states that rental car companies must publish two items in all advertising: the daily charge of the collision damage waivers and a suggestion to the consumer to check if his or her personal coverage covers rental car damage. Ms. Hylen explained that a broad interpretation of the statute could require the disclosure any time the company's logo is included in any brand or company awareness advertising. HB 1115 would trigger the required disclosure only when a rental car company's rate is advertised.


BILL:	HB06-1115
TIME:	03:03:09 PM
MOVED:	Balmer
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1115 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 13-0.
SECONDED:	Liston
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Borodkin	Yes
	Butcher	Yes
	Carroll M.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Knoedler	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	McCluskey	Yes
	Paccione	Yes
	Penry	Yes
	Welker	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Marshall	Yes
Final YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

03:04 PM --

Recess

03:15 PM -- House Bill 06-1030

Representative Coleman, prime sponsor, explained that House Bill 1030 came out of the Interim Committee on Auto Insurance. She stated the bill would require insurance companies to make certain disclosures to policyholders, and require the Commissioner of Insurance to create, by rule, a uniform automobile insurance disclosure form. Representative Coleman stated that the intent of the bill is uniform and consistent disclosure. She distributed and explained amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The amendment would return certain language pertaining to being oversold insurance to the statute that was originally struck.

03:21 PM -- Bill Imig, representing the Property and Casualty Insurers Association and Allstate Insurance Company, testified in support of the bill. He explained that the companies he represents had some concerns with some of the sections that were removed in the bill, but that the amendment returns those sections back into the law.

03:25 PM -- Don Mielke, representing the Colorado Chiropractors Association, testified in support of the bill. He stated that the concept of the bill is a universal disclosure form, that would make policyholders more informed.


BILL:	HB06-1030
TIME:	03:26:24 PM
MOVED:	Coleman
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Marshall
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Borodkin
	Butcher
	Carroll M.
	Coleman
	Knoedler
	Liston
	McCluskey
	Paccione
	Penry
	Welker
	Cerbo
	Marshall
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB06-1030
TIME:	03:28:33 PM
MOVED:	Coleman
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1030, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 12-1.
SECONDED:	Paccione
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Borodkin	Yes
	Butcher	No
	Carroll M.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Knoedler	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	McCluskey	Yes
	Paccione	Yes
	Penry	Yes
	Welker	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Marshall	Yes
Final YES: 12 NO: 1 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

03:30 PM -- House Bill 06-1044

Representative Cloer, prime sponsor, distributed a strike below amendment L.007 (Attachment C) to House Bill 06-1044. Representative Cloer stated that the bill would establish that once the insurance company accepts responsibility for the repair of the car and fault has been determined, then the insurance company should take fiscal responsibility for the medical portion at that time as well. He walked through the sections of the strike below. The committee and the sponsor decided to hear testimony today, and then lay the bill over for action on Wednesday, February 8, because some of the members had not had an opportunity to read the amendment prior to the hearing.

03:45 PM -- Dr. Tom Friermood MD, representing the Colorado Orthopedics Society, testified in support of the bill. He stated that from a physicians point of view, the change that was made from no-fault to tort has had a significant negative impact on facilities and physicians that care for trauma patients. He stated that the bill would addresses one piece of the problem.

03:47 PM -- Angela Aguilera, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. She gave a personal account of an accident she was involved in and the problems she encountered receiving payment for medical bills. Ms. Aguilera responded to questions from the committee about her insurance coverage, who was at fault in the accident, and a pending lawsuit.

03:52 PM -- Angie Lender, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. She gave her personal account of a car accident she was involved in. She explained the problems she has encountered trying to receive payment for her medical bills. Ms. Lender was asked what the total cost of her medical bills were. She sated they were around $2,000.

03:55 PM -- Cathy Cortez, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. She also gave a personal account of an accident she was involved in. She stated that the person who hit her was 100 percent responsible and that the insurance company paid for her car, but have not paid for her medical bills. She added that she also had medical payment coverage of $5,000, but it went quickly since her bills are close to $10,000. Ms. Cortez stated that if the insurance company would pay from the beginning rather than waiting until the end, it would be easier to get care.

04:06 PM -- Dr. Christie Sprawl, representing Colorado Chiropractic Association, testified in support of the bill. She stated that many patients have their bills go to collections.

04:07 PM -- Mike Hodges, representing the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, testified in opposition to the bill. He talked about the "make whole" doctrine that Colorado does not follow as opposed to other states that do. He stated that the bill would make payments take longer than before. Mr. Hodges responded to questions pertaining to whether a person, under the bill, would have to disclose how much coverage he or she has.

04:16 PM

Mr. Hodges continued to respond to committee questions.

04:20 PM

Bill Imig, representing the Property and Casualty Insurers Association, testified in opposition to the bill. He explained that if someone is hurt in an auto accident they have two claims: a health care claim arising out of the accident, and a claim for pain and suffering. He mentioned that a person has a claim against the at-fault driver if that person has any assets. He stated that current law provides for settling a claim before 30 days, and there may also be other factors that delay a settlement.

04:25 PM

In response to a question from the committee, Mr. Imig stated there is a statute and a regulation that prohibits a health care company from refusing to give care due to an auto accident. Mr. Imig stated that insurance companies want to settle these cases quicker, but it takes both parties. There was committee discussion about offering medical payment coverage and how it can be oversold.

04:42 PM -- Lora Smith, representing the Quality Health Care Coalition, testified in support of the bill. She stated that she represents the health care industry and talked about how some injured parties have been forced to file bankruptcy due to medical bills after auto accidents. She was asked if every person that treated the injured person should get paid and how that should be determined. She agreed that medical necessity needs to be taken into account.

04:47 PM

Representative Carroll discussed the current statute.

04:50 PM -- Revata Farnsworth, representing the Rehabilitation Association of Colorado and the Quality Health Care Coalition, testified in support of the bill. She responded to a previous question about how the bills get paid. Ms. Farnsworth stated that many policyholders are uninformed about what medical payment coverage actually represents. She stated that only 25 percent of Coloradoans have purchased medical payment coverage.

04:58 PM -- Brenda Smith and her sister Rebeca Imgrund, testified together in support of the bill. They talked about a car accident Ms. Smith and Ms. Imgrund's children were involved in. Ms. Imgrund stated that she has had to go through collections for the accident that she was not even involved in because her children were involved. She stated the accident has destroyed her credit and has left her with unpaid medical bills. She stated that her son's health insurance capped at $400,000 and the total amount of bills exceed a million dollars and she cannot pay that.

05:05 PM -- Cindy Sovine, representing the Trauma Preservation Coalition and the Colorado Health and Hospital Association, stated that the coalition and the association had many problems with the original bill. Ms. Sovine explained that only forty percent of health plans in Colorado are regulated by the Division of Insurance, so the prompt pay laws and laws that do not allow insurance companies to deny auto accident claims, only apply to that forty percent of insurance plans. She stated that she supports the amendment and would be happy to answer any questions. There was a discussion about whether the injured person should take responsibility for not being covered, such as opting out of medical payment coverage because they do not want to pay for it. Ms. Sovine responded on a personal level.

05:09 PM -- Don Mielke, Colorado Chiropractors Association, responded to some of the earlier comments. He spoke about medical payment coverage and the prompt pay statute that was passed a few years ago by Senator Mitchell.

05:12 PM -- Ellen Caruso, Executive Director of the Physical Therapy Association in Colorado, testified in support of the bill. She stated that small businesses, such as physical therapy clinics, are not financially secure enough to accept patients without payment.

05:13 PM

Representative Marshall took House Bill 1044 off the table stating that on Wednesday, February 8, the committee will take action on the bill and the strike below.

05:24 PM -- House Bill 06-1174

Representative Soper, prime sponsor, stated that House Bill 1174 requires every person performing construction work on a construction site to be covered by workers' compensation insurance. He stated that the bill was brought up last year and vetoed by the Governor, and that this bill addresses the concerns brought up by the Governor.

05:27 PM -- Rick Richtor, representing the Colorado Association of Home Builders (CAHB), testified against the bill. He stated that it creates an unfair business environment for small businesses. Mr. Richtor responded to a question from the committee about how the labor brokers are separated from sub-contractors. Mr. Richtor clarified that the freedom to elect to not have workers' compensation is taken away from workers in the bill. Mr. Richtor was asked what the alternative is for workers who chose not to be covered under workers' compensation. He responded that an alternative would be private health insurance.

05:36 PM -- Jamie Glonek, representing the Colorado Apartment Association, testified against the bill. He stated that the bill would require the small independent owner of an apartment building to cover a handyman to do some work on their building. Representative Soper responded that the bill excludes routine maintenance workers. Mr. Glonek disagreed.

05:40 PM -- Bob Greene, representing the Colorado Building and Construction Trade Council and the Colorado Laborers District Council, testified in support of the bill. He stated it is a fairness issue and that the bill creates a level playing field by not allowing underbidding.

05:41 PM -- Jim Ballard, owner of Rocky Mountain Drywall, testified in support of the bill. He stated it is a good step at leveling the playing field.

05:43 PM -- John Berry, representing the Workers' Compensation Coalition, testified in support of the bill. He said his members are stating they cannot compete with companies that do not cover their workers under workers' compensation. He said the approach is workable. There was a question from the committee about how the contractors are paid. Mr. Berry explained that it varies from construction site to construction site. There was some committee discussion about a current law that already covers the issue.

05:47 PM -- Dennis Jakubowski, representing the Associated General Contractors of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. He stated there are abuses in calling people independent contractors who really are not. He stated that the bill addresses one of their problems.

05:48 PM -- Representative Soper explained that amendment L.005 clarifies that if subcontractors are carrying workers compensation and the contractor exercises due diligence that they are carrying workers' compensation, then they satisfy the requirement in the bill (Attachment D). Representative Soper stated that it is the responsibility of the bidder to check if the subcontractors are covered.


BILL:	HB06-1174
TIME:	05:49:39 PM
MOVED:	Balmer
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.005 (Attachment D). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Coleman
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Borodkin
	Butcher
	Carroll M.
	Coleman
	Knoedler
	Liston
	McCluskey
	Paccione
	Penry
	Welker
	Cerbo
	Marshall
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB06-1174
TIME:	05:52:56 PM
MOVED:	Coleman
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1174, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 7-6.
SECONDED:	Carroll M.
		VOTE
	Balmer	No
	Borodkin	Yes
	Butcher	Yes
	Carroll M.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Knoedler	No
	Liston	No
	McCluskey	No
	Paccione	Yes
	Penry	No
	Welker	No
	Cerbo	Yes
	Marshall	Yes
Final YES: 7 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:58 PM -- House Bill 06-1036

Representative M. Carroll, prime sponsor, explained that House Bill 1036 came out of the Interim Auto Insurance Committee. She distributed two handouts: a fact sheet about House Bill 1036 (Attachment E), and a memo prepared for the Interim Auto Insurance Committee about evaluating the switch from no-fault to tort (Attachment F). She stated the bill requires auto insurance companies to offer medical payments coverage to drivers and to keep proof of rejection. Failure to do so would result in a default coverage of $5,000 medical payments coverage. She added that before rejecting the coverage, consumers must be advised of the potential consequences of declining coverage. Representative Carroll explained some of the problems that can occur to a person who has opted out of medical payments coverage.

06:05 PM

Representative Carroll stated that the advice for coverage varies greatly from carrier to carrier and broker to broker. She stated the bill has a consumer protection piece to it that allows the policyholder to opt out once they know the consequences. Representative Carroll talked about an amendment she would be offering, L.002 (Attachment G), that deals with a mechanism of implementation. She mentioned that a few witnesses had to leave early, but that she would make their testimony available (Attachment H). Representative Carroll explained that the bill does not require duplicative coverage. There was a question from the committee regarding underinsured coverage. Is there other recourse for receiving the money. Representative Carroll stated eventually an injured person would be covered under other means.

06:20 PM -- Mike Hodges, representing the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Hodges responded to questions regarding disclosure to clients and enumerated the reasons he supported having consumers opting out of default coverage.

06:26 PM -- Mark Nixon, representing Progressive Insurance, testified in support of the bill and said that it allows consumers to choose the best option for themselves. He said that he believes it would also increase consumer education. He distinguished between a mandatory offer of medical payments coverage versus mandating medical payments coverage. He responded to questions pertaining to potential amendments to the bill that his company would support.

06:30 PM -- Don Mielke, representing the Colorado Chiropractors Association, testified in support of the bill.

06:31 PM -- Cheryl Hutter, representing herself, testified in support of the bill and gave her personal account of her problems with the switch from no fault to tort. She stated she was involved in a minor hit and run accident and they never found the driver. She felt her insurance company should pay, but never did. She added that she had health insurance and PIP at the time and still had problems.

06:35 PM -- Bill Imig, representing the Property Casualty Insurance Association and Allstate Insurance Company, testified in opposition to the bill. He stated that his company believes under the current law, people are buying medical payments coverage when they need it. He stated that for the most part, medical payments coverage is not needed with other coverage. Mr. Imig stated that even with the right to reject, consumers may believe that the state is telling consumers to buy it. The committee asked questions about the cost of medical payments coverage. Mr. Imig explained that Allstate stated it costs about $100 to $300 a year for $5,000 coverage.

06:39 PM -- Rich Gebhardt, representing State Farm, testified in opposition of the bill. He addressed two things: how the tort system is working, and why a mandated medical payments coverage with rejection is wrong. He stated that 3/4 of the 38 states that have a tort system do not mandate any kind of medical payments coverage. He told the committee the cost annually for medical payments coverage for a young and old driver. Representative Carroll asked Mr. Gebhardt out of the states that have a tort system, how many are switching to no-fault. Mr. Gebhardt responded that most states are moving away from no-fault and switching to tort. Mr. Gebhardt was asked how doctors are paid in the states that do not have mandatory medical payments coverage. He stated that in those states, 85 percent of the population either have military health care coverage, health insurance, or something else that would cover the cost.

06:48 PM -- Representative Carroll responded to the mandatory medical payment coverage discussion that was discussed earlier and stated that the bill does not mandate medical payment coverage, it allows the policyholder to reject it if they choose to. She stated it parallels current law. There was some concern whether consumers will understand they can affirmatively reject this policy.


BILL:	HB06-1036
TIME:	06:51:31 PM
MOVED:	Carroll M.
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment G). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Coleman
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Borodkin
	Butcher
	Carroll M.
	Coleman
	Knoedler
	Liston
	McCluskey
	Paccione
	Penry
	Welker
	Cerbo
	Marshall
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB06-1036
TIME:	06:52:00 PM
MOVED:	Carroll M.
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1036, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 8-4.
SECONDED:	Borodkin
		VOTE
	Balmer	No
	Borodkin	Yes
	Butcher	Yes
	Carroll M.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Knoedler	No
	Liston	Yes
	McCluskey	No
	Paccione	Excused
	Penry	Yes
	Welker	No
	Cerbo	Yes
	Marshall	Yes
Final YES: 8 NO: 4 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

07:04 PM -- House Bill 06-1055

Representative Coleman, prime sponsor, explained that House Bill 1055 is a workers' compensation bill that deals with mental impairment. She stated that the current statute entitles a person who suffers mental impairment to receive twelve weeks of medical impairment benefits unless the person is a victim of a crime of violence. Representative Coleman stated that there has been some concern over the meaning of crime, so the bill would change the language in the statute from "a crime" to "an act" of violence. She explained that proposed amendment L.001 would address concerns about the perpetrator's intent (Attachment I).

07:06 PM -- John Berry, representing the Colorado Workers' Compensation Coalition, testified in opposition to the bill but in support of the bill with the amendment. He stated that the amendment leaves in the term "crime of violence" and adds without regard of the intent of the perpetuator of the crime. Mr. Berry explained that many people have not received benefits because they could not prove intent.

07:07 PM -- Doug Phillips, an attorney who represents injured workers, testified. He explained that a person can receive up to twelve weeks of impairment benefits under workers' compensation if there is a physical injury that causes that impairment. Mr. Phillips mentioned that there is one exception to that rule, and that is if the person was injured as a result of a crime of violence. He gave some examples of clients he had in the past who were denied the benefits because they could not prove the perpetrator had the intent to harm them.

07:10 PM -- Virginia Morrison Love, representing the Colorado Competitive Council, testified in support of the bill.

07:10 PM -- Mike Steiner, representing Pinnacol Assurance, testified in support of the bill.


BILL:	HB06-1055
TIME:	07:11:14 PM
MOVED:	Coleman
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment I). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	McCluskey
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Borodkin
	Butcher
	Carroll M.
	Coleman
	Knoedler
	Liston
	McCluskey
	Paccione
	Penry
	Welker
	Cerbo
	Marshall
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB06-1055
TIME:	07:11:35 PM
MOVED:	Coleman
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1055, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 12-0.
SECONDED:	McCluskey
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Borodkin	Yes
	Butcher	Yes
	Carroll M.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Knoedler	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	McCluskey	Yes
	Paccione	Excused
	Penry	Yes
	Welker	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Marshall	Yes
Final YES: 12 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

07:13 PM -- House Bill 06-1119

Representative Marshall, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 1119 for action only to the committee. The bill, which concerns security breaches of personally identifying information was heard by the committee on Wednesday, February 1. Today the bill is before the committee for action only. She distributed amendment L.003 that was a collaboration between the industry that would be administering the program and the consumer groups (Attachment J). Representative Marshall explained that the intent of the bill, to notify consumers when their information has been breached, is not changed by the amendment. Representative Marshall stated that there was some concern with the amendment from the industry on page 2, line 19. She stated that the industry had mentioned that the word "proprietary" was redundant language and should be struck from the amendment.


BILL:	HB06-1119
TIME:	07:14:31 PM
MOVED:	Marshall
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment J). [see next vote sheet for amendment to L.003] Amendment L.003, as amended, was adopted without objection.
SECONDED:	Coleman
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Borodkin
	Butcher
	Carroll M.
	Coleman
	Knoedler
	Liston
	McCluskey
	Paccione
	Penry
	Welker
	Cerbo
	Marshall
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB06-1119
TIME:	07:16:25 PM
MOVED:	Marshall
MOTION:	Move to strike the word "proprietary" on page 2, line 19, of amendment L.003. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Liston
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Borodkin
	Butcher
	Carroll M.
	Coleman
	Knoedler
	Liston
	McCluskey
	Paccione
	Penry
	Welker
	Cerbo
	Marshall
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB06-1119
TIME:	07:17:29 PM
MOVED:	Marshall
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1119, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 12-0.
SECONDED:	Coleman
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Borodkin	Yes
	Butcher	Yes
	Carroll M.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Knoedler	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	McCluskey	Yes
	Paccione	Excused
	Penry	Yes
	Welker	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Marshall	Yes
Final YES: 12 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

07:18 PM --

The committee adjourned.