BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2987|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2987
Author: Nunez (D) and Levine (D), et al
Amended: 8/28/06 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE : 9-0, 6/29/06
AYES: Escutia, Cox, Alarcon, Battin, Dunn, Dutton, Kehoe,
Murray, Simitian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bowen
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 13-0, 8/17/06
AYES: Murray, Aanestad, Alarcon, Alquist, Ashburn, Battin,
Dutton, Escutia, Florez, Ortiz, Poochigian, Romero,
Torlakson
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/31/06 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Cable and video service
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill enacts the Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/28/06 authorize the Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) to impose non-discriminatory fee
to pay for its activities in the same way that public
utilities pay fees to the PUC. The PUC is required to
commence accepting applications for a state-issued video
franchise by April 1, 2007. Holders of franchises must
CONTINUED
AB 2987
Page
2
report specified information to the PUC annually, and the
PUC shall make such information publicly available pursuant
to the existing rules. The Division of Ratepayer Advocates
within the PUC is authorized to advocate on behalf of video
customers under specified circumstances.
The amendments require local governments to either approve
or deny encroachment permits for the construction of video
facilities within 60 days.
ANALYSIS : Current law authorizes local governments to
grant franchises to provide cable television service. In
awarding a franchise the local government must assure that
access to cable service is not denied to any group of
customers because of their income. Franchise fees may not
exceed five percent of gross revenues. The local
franchising authority may require the franchise to provide
channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental
use.
Current law requires any competitor to an existing cable
operator to provide service to the same entire area as that
operator.
This bill replaces the local franchising process with a
state process.
The backdrop for this legislation is the development of
technologies that allow telephone companies to provide
television service over their telephone networks. More
competition should keep cable television prices from rising
and result in new services that combine telephone, internet
and cable television capabilities. However, this welcome
development comes with a few strings attached. The biggest
is that the telephone companies don't want to negotiate
individual cable franchises with the hundreds of local
governments, which have been delegated the jurisdiction to
issue the franchise from the state. Instead the telephone
companies seek the simplicity and ease of a single
state-issued franchise whose parameters are established in
statute.
When local governments originally granted cable franchises
decades ago they were almost exclusively monopolies. Today
AB 2987
Page
3
the market for cable service is much different. Satellite
providers are viable competitors, capturing nearly
one-third of the market. Technological advances will soon
make it possible to view television from other wireless
providers like cell phones. Internet-based video service
is already widely available. And of course new entrants
must compete with the existing cable operators. It is this
much more competitive market which provides the public
policy rationale for this bill.
Unlike the local franchising process, the state-franchising
process is intended to be largely ministerial. The
give-and-take which characterizes local franchise
negotiations is replaced with statutorily established
requirements for franchise fees, build-out requirements,
anti-discrimination requirements, Public, Education and
Governmental (PEG) channel obligations, customer service
standards, and privacy requirements. Administering the
state franchising process is the Public Utilities
Commission. The provisions of the bill are intended to
encompass telephone companies and their affiliates offering
cable service. This bill is not intended to alter the
regulatory requirements for offering telephone service.
Non-discrimination/Build-out Commitments/Technology . Under
a typical local franchise, the cable company must build out
virtually the entire local community, except for high-cost
areas. (Los Angeles is an exception, having divided itself
up into 14 non-overlapping franchise areas.) This
requirement has not been applied to new competitors under
this bill, except under limited circumstances.
Requiring a complete build out of an entire city, much less
the telecommunications company's entire telephone foot
print, is probably an unfair burden due both to the
engineering/cost constraints and to the differing
competitive circumstances. Telecommunications companies
wish to build their cable networks in a sort of overlay to
their existing telephone network. The telephone networks
consist of linked computer sites. From each site telephone
lines spread out into neighborhoods like tree branches.
These branches are designed for engineering efficiency and
therefore do not coincide with political boundaries. This
contrasts with cable networks which, because they are
AB 2987
Page
4
locally franchised, are designed and built to coincide with
the local franchisor's political boundaries. Most
relevantly, as noted above the new competitors face much
more competition than the original cable operators faced,
making an initial requirement to build out the
telecommunications company's entire foot print unrealistic
and unreasonable.
This does not mean that there should not be any buildout
requirement. California has an interest in promoting the
widest possible availability of these services so that the
greatest possible number of customers may benefit. Indeed
a goal of this bill is for all Californian's to have access
to the most technologically advanced cable and video
services. The authors have negotiated buildout commitments
from each of the two largest telecommunications companies.
Those commitments, 25 percent of customers offered video
service within two years, and 40 percent within five years
for Verizon, and 35 percent within three years and 50
percent within five years for AT&T, reflect the different
technology and installation hurdles faced by each company.
While well short of 100 percent, these requirements are far
more than either company has agreed to in any other state.
The same can be said for the anti-discrimination language.
While discrimination in the offering of video service is
barred, the law is difficult to enforce without numerical
targets. This bill again goes beyond other state and
federal franchising proposals by establishing a specific
test for ensuring that discrimination is not occurring for
the two largest telephone companies in California. That
test, which is that within three years at least 25 percent
of the households being offered video service are low
income, and 30 percent within five years, is measurable and
enforceable.
While the authors expect the companies to live up to these
requirements, they are not absolute. After two years the
telecommunications company can seek a waiver of any of
these anti-discrimination and buildout requirements. The
waiver can be granted if the franchising authority finds
that the company cannot meet the requirements because of
circumstances outside of its control and has made
AB 2987
Page
5
substantial and continuous effort to meet those
requirements. The second waiver mechanism is that the five
year buildout requirement, 40 percent for Verizon and 50
percent for AT&T, does not apply until two years after at
least 30 percent of households with access to their video
service subscribe for at least six months.
This bill allows for some flexibility in the technology
that can be used to meet these requirements, but explicitly
excludes satellite-based technology.
Fee or Tax . Local governments have raised concerns that
the structure of this bill may be found to be
unconstitutional because it could be seen either as a tax,
rather than a fee, or as a state tax assessed for local
purposes. Legislative Counsel disagrees with both
concerns, as do the bill sponsors, and has opined that the
bill establishes a franchise fee, which is a rent, for use
of the right-of-way.
The state franchise fee is set at five percent though local
governments may reduce that fee if they wish.
Local Control over the Right of Way . This bill preserves
local control over the right of way by giving local
government the same rights over the installation of video
equipment as they have over telephone equipment. This
means that local government has control over the time,
place, and manner in which such equipment is installed.
Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) Access . Current
law authorizes local franchising authorities to negotiate
channel set-asides for PEG access as well as support for
PEG operations. Some local franchising authorities have
also negotiated institutional networks (I-nets), which are
communication networks used by local governments for their
own communications purposes. This bill grandfathers in the
existing PEG channel requirements, and authorizes all local
franchising authorities to receive three PEG channels. In
addition the state of California is authorized to establish
a PEG channel for state purposes. All local governments
are authorized to impose via ordinance a one percent fee
for PEG purposes. Those four percent of local governments
that impose a fee for PEG support through their current
AB 2987
Page
6
franchise higher than one percent are authorized to impose
that same level of fee after the franchise expires, but not
to exceed three percent.
Gross Revenues . A key dispute in this bill is the
definition of gross revenues upon which the franchise fee
is based. The intent of the bill is to keep local
governments whole. Local governments argue that the gross
revenues definition in the bill falls short of that intent
and suggest several additional categories of revenues which
should be included. The cable operators contend that those
additional categories of revenues are not currently counted
as revenue in any of the franchises of the major cable
operators and would therefore increase franchise fees to
local government.
Cross-subsidy Protection . Competition is unfair if one
competitor can use the profits of a relatively
uncompetitive business to subsidize its entry into a
relatively competitive business. This anti-competitive
behavior hurts customers because it creates an unlevel
playing field, making it more likely that competition will
be neither robust nor durable. Most telecommunications
markets are competitive; competition keeps a lid on rate
increases and so provides a check against anti-competitive
cross subsidy. But the market for basic residential
telephone service is not very competitive. While there is
some substitution of cellular service for basic residential
service, and there are a few competitors, such as Cox
Cable, by and large there is little competition.
This bill deals with the potential for cross-subsidization
by freezing rates for basic residential telephone service
at current levels until 2009, with the PUC authorized to
raise those rates to reflect inflation increases.
Additionally, this bill prohibits all telephone companies
from raising the price of basic telephone service to
finance the cost of providing cable service.
Privacy . The major telecommunications companies have been
accused by whistle-blowers of sharing customer information
with federal authorities without a warrant, raising privacy
concerns. Federal lawsuits have resulted. Heightening
those concerns are very recent press reports that AT&T will
AB 2987
Page
7
keep track of their video customers' viewing habits and
that those customer records are business records owned by
AT&T.
This bill subjects new cable competitors to the same state
and federal privacy standards as are imposed on the
existing cable operators.
Transition Period . The bill provides for a transition
period until January 1, 2008 during which competitors can
seek a state franchise but incumbent cable operators
cannot. During that period incumbent cable operators may
continue to operate under their existing local franchises,
renew their expired franchises, and otherwise continue to
operate, maintain, and upgrade their systems. After that
time a cable operator may seek a state franchise once a
competitor has been granted a state franchise or after the
local franchise expires.
Customer Service Standards . California established minimum
state-wide cable customer service standards more than ten
years ago. This bill makes those state standards, as well
as existing federal standards, a part of the state
franchise. The penalties for a material breech of those
standards, which are statutory, have been raised to
$500/day.
No Vested Right . Locally-issued franchises are contracts
which cannot be altered until their term expires. This
bill preserves the right to amend the statute and therefore
the terms of the state-issued franchise. There has been no
objection to this provision.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2006-07 2007-08
2008-09 Fund
Cable franchising $1,000 $1,000
$1,000 Special
AB 2987
Page
8
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/28/06)
Academic Uprise
Actiontec Electronics, Inc.
African American Business Council
African American Historical and Cultural Museum
Alcatel
Alliance for Community Media
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
American G.I. Forum
American Heart Association
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
Arriba Juntos
Asian Americans for Community Involvement
Asian American Resource Center
Asian Business Association
Asian Business Council
Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern
California
Asian Pacific Islander American Public Asian American
Resource Center
Affairs Association Community Education Foundation
Asians for Corporate and Community Action
AT&T California
Bakersfield Homeless Center
Bank of the West
Beaumont Chamber of Commerce
Black Business Association
Black Women Organized for Political Action
Boys and Girls Club of Auburn
Boys and Girls Club of Fontana
Breakthru
Brotherhood Crusade
Burton, Kevin Fruitvale School District Trustee
Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation
California Black Chamber of Commerce
California Building Trades Council
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Commission on APIA Affairs
California Consumers United
AB 2987
Page
9
California Hispanic Association on Corp. Responsibility
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Labor Federation
California Small Business Association
California State Conference of the NAACP
CSU, Chico, Center for Economic Development
CSU, Sacramento, College of Business Administration
California Video & Technology Choice
Camarillo Health Care District
Campbell Union High School Dist.
Capitol Claims Services
Castle and Cooke
Center for Accessible Technology
Center for Fathers and Families
Central American Resource Center
Central City Association of LA
Central Labor Council of Fresno, Madera, Tulare & Kings
Counties
Charles Industries, Ltd.
CHARO Community Development Chico Economic Planning Corp.
Chris Bernal Tax Services
Citizens Against Regulatory Excess
City of Firebaugh
Colton Chamber of Commerce
CWA, District 9
CWA, Local 9333
CWA, Local 9404
CWA, Local 9408
CWA, Local 9412
CWA, Local 9415
CWA, Local 9416
CWA, Local 9417
CWA, Local 9421
CWA, Local 9423
Computer Technologies Program
Community Union, Inc.
Congress of California Seniors
Consumers Federation of California
Consumers First Inc.
Create-N-Animate
Culver City Chamber of Commerce
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Svc. Center
Delano Union Elementary School District Board of Trustees
Developmental Disabilities Service Organization, Inc.
AB 2987
Page
10
Disabled Sports USA - FAR WEST
Dunham, Sarah - Career Counselor, University of California,
Berkeley
Edmund G. Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs
El Centro de Amistad
El Concilio del Conduado de Ventura
El Granito Foundation
Elder Help of San Diego
Elizabeth Peterson Group, Inc.
Federal Technology Center
Fiber-to-the-Home Council
Filipino American Chamber of Commerce of Solano County
Fontana Herald News
Fresno Center for New Americans
Friends Unlimited
Gardena Valley Chamber of Commerce
Gateway Chambers Alliance - Los Angeles
Global Energy & Technology, Inc.
Greater Huntington Park Area Chamber of Commerce
Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce
Greenlining Institute
Habitat for Humanity, Fresno County
Halsa Inc.
Hammerhead Systems Inc.
Harbor City/Harbor Gateway Chamber of Commerce
Hartnell College
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Health Foundation
Hispanic Association of Communication Employees of AT&T
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Contra Costa County
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Marin
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Orange County
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Stanislaus County
Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
Huntington Park Chamber of Commerce
Information Technology Consortium
Inland Action, Inc.
Inland Empire African American Chamber of Commerce
Intel
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Irvine Chamber of Commerce
Irvine Valley College Foundation
ITC
Joanne David on behalf of Haven Hills
Kern County Taxpayers Association
AB 2987
Page
11
Korean Health, Education, Information & Research Center
La Casa de San Gabriel Community Center
Lao Khmu Association
Latino Community Roundtable, Stanislaus County
Latino Council of Marin
Latino Journal
League of United Latin American Citizens
Lighthouse Computer Group
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Materus
McMillin Homes
Mexican American Opportunity Foundation
Microsoft Corporation
Milpitas Chamber of Commerce
Minerva Networks, Inc.
NAACP - Fresno Branch
NAACP - Hercules, Pinole, & Rodeo
NAACP - Lake Elsinore Branch
NAACP - Los Angeles
NAACP - Monterey Peninsula Branch
NAACP - San Gabriel Valley Branch
NAACP - Vallejo Branch
National Council on Aging
National Tax-Limitation Committee
National Taxpayers Union
Networking Everyone w/ Technology
Society for the Blind
New Beginnings Academy
New Economics For Women
Novato Chamber of Commerce
OASIS
Observer Newspaper
Ocean Park Community Center
Paint Your Heart Out, Inc.
Pasadena Chamber of Commerce
Pets Are Wonderful - Los Angeles
Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce
Plaza Development Partners, LLC
Polaris Group
Poway Chamber of Commerce
Powers, Robert
President Health Corp.
Printing Consultants
Project Amiga
AB 2987
Page
12
Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
RBD Communications
Rio Hondo Boys and Girls Club
RJ Martin Insurance Agency
Roberts Family Development Center
RSVP Volunteers
Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento County Taxpayers League
San Anselmo Chamber of Commerce
San Bernardino Community College District
San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce
San Fracisco Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Valley Black Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
Santa Ana Education Foundation
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
Self-Help For the Elderly
Sempra Energy
Senior Community Centers
Serving God's People
Shasta County Board of Supervisors - Patricia Clarke,
District 5
Social Concerns of Southern CA
South Bay Latino Chamber of Commerce
Southeast Asian Community Center
State Association of Electrical Workers
State Building and Construction Trades Council of
California
Suscol Intertribal Council
Telamon
Telecommunications Industry Association
Thoma Electric
Thousand Oaks-Westlake Village Regional Chamber
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
TriNet Communications, Inc.
Tri-Valley Business Council
Tulare County League of Mexican-American Women
United Way of Butte and Glenn Counties
United Way of Northern California
United Way of San Joaquin County
USC, Annenberg School for \Communication
Ventura County Economic Development Association
Ventura County Taxpayers Assn.
AB 2987
Page
13
Verizon
Vietnamese Community of Pomona Valley
Video Access Alliance
Vital Link
Volunteers of America of Southwest California
Watts/Century Latino Organization
West Fresno Healthcare Coalition
Western Region Puerto RicanCouncil
Westside Council of Chambers of Commerce
Women's Council of Realtors
World Institute On Disability
Youth Violence Prevention Council of Shasta County
Yuba Sutter Economic Development Corporation
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/28/06)
AARP
Adelphia Communications
Artelias S. Guyton & Associates
Business Women for the Environment
California Contract Cities Association
California Library Association
California State Association of Counties
California State University , Monterey Bay, Chief
Information Officer
Calaveras County Community Television
Charter Communications, LLC
Charter Communications - Inland Empire
Cities of Alameda, Antioch, Arcadia, Arcata, Arroyo, Azusa,
Bakersfield, Banning, Bellflower, Belmont, Benicia,
Berkeley, Blue Lake, Brea, Brentwood, Buena Park.
Calabasas, Calistoga, Campbell, Capitola, Carlsbad,
Carpinteria, Carson, Cerritos, Chico, Chino, Chino Hills,
Claremont, Clayton, Cloverdale, Clovis, Colusa, Commerce,
Compton, Concord, Coronado, Costa Mesa, Cotati, Covina,
Culver City, Cupertino, Cypress, Daly City, Del Mar,
Diamond Bar, Downey, Duarte, El Cajon, El Segundo, El
Dorado Hills, Elk Grove, Emeryville, Encinitas,
Escondido, Fairfax, Fairfield, Fort Bragg, Fortuna,
Foster City, Fountain Valley, Fremont, Fresno, Garden
Grove, Gardena, Gilroy, Goleta, Grover Beach, Hollister,
Hughson, Huntington Beach, Imperial Beach, Inglewood,
Irvine, La Canada Flintridge, La Mesa, La Mirada, La
Palma, La Quinta, La Verne, Lafayette, Laguna Hills, Lake
AB 2987
Page
14
Forest, Lakeport, Lakewood, Larkspur, Lathrop, Laverne,
Lemon Grove, Lincoln, Live Oak, Livermore, Lomita,
Lompoc, Long Beach, Lynwood, Manhattan Beach, Manteca,
Maywood, Menlo Park, Merced, Mill Valley, Millbrae,
Mission Viejo, Modesto, Monrovia, Monterey, Monterey
Park, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Morro Bay, Mountain View,
Mt. Shasta, Murrieta, Nevada City, Norwalk, Novato,
Oakland, Oceanside, Ontario, Orange, Pacific Grove,
Pacifica, Palm Desert, Palmdale, Palo Alto, Palos Verdes
Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Petaluma, Pinole, Pismo
Beach, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Pomona, Porterville,
Poway, Rancho Cordova, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Red Bluff, Redding, Redlands,
Redondo Beach, Redwood City, Rohnert Park, Rolling Hills
Estates, Rosemead, Roseville, Salinas, San Bernardino,
San Clemente, San Diego, San Dimas, San Jose, San
Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, San Leandro, San Luis
Obispo, San Marcos, San Mateo, San Pablo, Santa Ana,
Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Maria,
Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Sausalito, Scotts Valley, Seal
Beach, Sebastopol, Sierra Madre, Solana Beach, Soledad,
Sonoma, South Lake Tahoe, South San Francisco, Stanton,
Stockton, Suisun City, Sunnyvale, Thousand Oaks,
Torrance, Tracy, Tustin, Upland, Vacaville, Ventura,
Visalia, Vista, Walnut, Walnut Creek, West Covina, West
Hollywood, Whittier, Woodland, Yreka, Yuba City, and
Yucaipa
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
City/County of San Francisco
Community Media Access Partnership
Counties of Contra Costa, Monterey, Nevada, Sacramento, San
Bernardino, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz
El Dorado Hills Community Svc Dist.
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Las Virgenes-Malibu Council of Governments
League of CA Cities
League of CA Cities LA Division
League of CA Cities, City of Morro Bay
Livermore City Council
Jim Madaffer, Councilmember
Marin Telecommunications Agency
Marine County Board of Supervisors
Mayors and Council Members Association of Sonoma County
Judith Mitchell, Councilmember
AB 2987
Page
15
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Monterey County Mayors' Association
Public Access Television of Calaveras County
Public Cable Television Authority
Gloryanna Rhodes, Mayor, City of Lathrop
Rohnert Park City Council
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
San Mateo County Telecommunications Authority
Santa Barbara Channel
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Rosa Community Media Center
Sutter Medical Center of Santa Rosa
Towns of Apple Valley, Fairfax, Truckee, and Windsor
Urban Counties Caucus
Ventura Council of Governments
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents argue that telephone
company entry into cable markets should be welcomed as a
way to help lower prices, improve service quality and spur
innovation. Proponents argue that revising existing cable
franchising laws is necessary. They argue to promote
competition, the state should establish a state-issued
franchise authorization process that allows market
participants to use their networks and systems to provide
video, voice, and broadband services to all residents of
the state.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue this is a
complex issue that deserves full public review. They argue
that the bill sacrifices the interests of consumers and
their communities. Opponents argue the bill (1) makes
customer cherry-picking legal (they fear this will increase
the digital divide), (2) provides a one-size-fits-all
approach to the PEG/I-Net issue (will cause many
communities to lose their right to activate PEG access
channels that are in current franchise), (3) will make
customer standards difficult to enforce (the bill includes
several provisions that undermine enforcement efforts), (4)
there is a public safety risk with the expiration of local
emergency service notifications, (5) creates a new state
bureaucracy to perform a local function (they argue the
franchise should be issued at the local level, and (6)
AB 2987
Page
16
provides a one-sided abrogation of local contracts.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Bass, Benoit, Berg,
Bermudez, Blakeslee, Bogh, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan,
Chavez, Chu, Cogdill, Cohn, Coto, Daucher, De La Torre,
DeVore, Dymally, Emmerson, Evans, Frommer, Garcia,
Goldberg, Hancock, Harman, Haynes, Jerome Horton, Shirley
Horton, Houston, Huff, Jones, Karnette, Keene, Klehs,
Koretz, La Malfa, La Suer, Laird, Leno, Leslie, Levine,
Lieber, Lieu, Liu, Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Montanez,
Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nava, Negrete McLeod, Parra,
Pavley, Plescia, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Sharon Runner,
Ruskin, Saldana, Salinas, Spitzer, Strickland, Torrico,
Tran, Umberg, Vargas, Villines, Walters, Wolk, Wyland,
Yee, Nunez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nation, Niello, Oropeza
NC:cm 8/28/06 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****