Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Investments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates bill to hold gold and silver in state portfolio; holds measure for further review
Summary
Lawmakers debated House Bill 1183, which would require the state investment board to hold physical gold or silver equal to at least 1% of state funds. Members raised liquidity, custodial and general‑fund concerns and ultimately held the bill for further review and drafting changes.
BISMARCK — The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee debated House Bill 1183, a proposal that would require the State Treasurer and the state investment board to hold physical gold and silver bullion in secure custody equal to at least 1 percent of state funds.
Representative Volmer said he would move a do‑not‑pass recommendation but acknowledged interest in the policy idea. “As far as I know, we are not waiting on amendments for this. This is where we would physically hold gold and silver investments by the state treasurer,” Representative Volmer said during discussion.
Opponents and supporters focused on practical questions: whether the state should hold physical bullion rather than paper or custodial investments; whether including the general fund in the calculation would create liquidity problems for day‑to‑day state operations; and whether 1 percent is a meaningful allocation. Representative Koppelman argued the requirement could be a modest way to start a diversification: “When you change your investment strategy, you don't move 40 percent — 1 percent is the gentlest of hands.”
Vice Chair Osterly and other members raised concerns about requiring physical custody and the risk of reduced liquidity if funds must be held in bullion across fund categories. Representatives noted the state investment board already has authority to invest in precious metals under existing policy and said the bill’s principal aim was to ensure the board acts.
Committee members moved toward a do‑not‑pass but the result produced a split outcome in the roll call. Rather than adopt the do‑not‑pass on the floor, members agreed to hold the bill over for additional consideration and possible language changes, including removing the explicit reference to the general fund or clarifying custodial arrangements.
The committee did not adopt final action on the bill and will revisit it when additional members are available and sponsors and staff can refine the language to address liquidity and custody concerns.
