Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/09/2003 01:40 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 92 - CLERGY TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE Number 0637 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 92, "An Act relating to reports by members of the clergy and custodians of clerical records who have reasonable cause to suspect that a child has suffered harm as a result of child abuse or neglect." [Before the committee was CSHB 92(STA).] REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 92, Version 23-LS0257\U, Lauterbach, 4/8/03, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version U was before the committee. Number 0710 RICHARD BLOCK, Representational Lobbyist for Christian Science Committee on Publication for Alaska, told the committee that he is speaking on behalf of those who turn to spiritual prayer for healing. He referred to his previous testimony regarding HB 92, heard by the House State Affairs Standing Committee [on March 6 and 18, 2003], wherein he stated that his organization had no objection to the proposed legislation and understands its purpose, and had asked for and was granted some changes in the language that recognize that Christian Science practitioners need the same level of protection as ordained clergy because they do take "confidential communications" from those who come for spiritual solace or healing. He added, "And that could include situations where they might disclose the kind of things that the legislature's trying to reach here." He said, "So, we were pretty content with [CSHB 92(STA)]." MR. BLOCK said that he had not studied Version U until last night. After reading it, he said, he came to the conclusion that the committee is still interested in ensuring that the provisions [in the bill] apply to all faith communities, so that those who entertain confidential communications from the members of that faith community are as protected as those who might speak to a catholic priest, or a minister, or a pastor who is ordained. He noted that a Christian Science practitioner is not ordained and is not selected or engaged in anything that might be termed "ecclesiastical." Thus, he has concern regarding the way the language has developed; he said that it tends to focus on those faith communities that have a more elaborate ecclesiastical, ceremonial, or ritual approach to determining who can speak and pray with those who have the need for it. Number 0906 MR. BLOCK said that in talking with the staff: They use the word in the definition of ... "clergy" - those who are set apart. But I'm not sure that I understand what the meaning of that is. Unfortunately, should this ever reach the level of having to be interpreted by a court, we're left with judicial interpretation and the rules thereof, and I'm afraid that the overabundance of language here that speaks to the more ceremonial and ritual may turn the court away from the fact that, in reality, what the legislature had in mind was making room and recognizing all faith communities that had people within them that wanted to pray for and with those that were in need. MR. BLOCK said that in keeping with what he believes is the legislature's intent, he would propose some modest changes. He noted that there are two things that [Version U] does differently than CSHB 92(STA). He elaborated: One is: it really tightens up the circumstances under which the communication is protected. Irrespective of who they're talking to, the communication is protected only if it meets three criteria set out in [proposed AS 47.17.021]. CHAIR McGUIRE indicated to Mr. Block that the committee has formulated amendments to address the issue he is raising. Number 1027 FLOYD SMITH, Consultant, Alaska District Council of the Assemblies of God, said that his organization could endorse [Version U] as long as committee adopt the same amendments that Mr. Block has proposed. MR. BLOCK clarified that one of his amendments [which was later referred to as Conceptual Amendment 1] reads [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 14 Delete "in the clergy member's ecclesiastical capacity" MR. BLOCK opined that the language doesn't add anything, but strengthens the impression that "you have to have some sort of ecclesiastical formal arrangement." He added, "And we're trying to move away from that." MR. SMITH said, "We could endorse that." He referred to [page 2, beginning on line 15], which read: "if (1) the church qualifies as tax-exempt under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)(Internal Revenue Code)". He told the committee that many of his organization's churches are in villages, are not incorporated, don't have 501(c)(3) status, and "piggyback on the basis of the state." If it is the intent that a church qualify for and receive 501(c)(3) status, he said, there will be problems in the villages. If it instead simply means that the church "could" qualify, then that's okay, he stated. MR. SMITH referred to the portion of [page 2], line 19, which read: "places the clergy member specifically and strictly". He said his organization would like to see "and strictly" deleted because "it adds nothing to it, and it might be subject to interpretation." MR. SMITH also noted, in keeping with Mr. Block's comment regarding Christian Science practitioners and the definition of clergy, that many Assembly of God ministers and other evangelical ministers are not ordained; instead, they are licensed. He said he would like the word "licensed" to be used. Number 1199 CHAIR McGUIRE thanked Mr. Block and Mr. Smith for their testimony. She then announced that public testimony was closed. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said: I think I can speak for most of us if I say that we don't want to create a privilege that is so broad that it would strike out the duty to report child abuse or child neglect. And I applaud the committee members for inserting the term child neglect back into this version of the bill. I believe we should report both child abuse and child neglect; it is that important. We still have a decision to make. I think many of us believe that the confidentiality provision should be written as narrowly as possible. That was the intent of the sponsor when just the sacramental confession was included into the confidentiality provision, but nothing else. But many of us thought, "Well, that is too religion-specific." I applaud [Chair McGuire]. We've all discussed what's probably the most narrowly drawn confidentiality provision in the country, and that's the Idaho version. ... That's the one that is now in this CS. But, before we discuss which confidentiality provision to accept - and that's what all the amendments relate to, which confidentiality provision to accept - I still am wondering whether or not we should recognize any confidentiality provision. And I guess I want to hear from the members about that. We don't accept one in the case of reporting abuse of elders. Many other states do not accept any privilege by clergy members to refrain from reporting abuse and neglect. And I would like to hear from the other committee members, views on whether that is a proper approach, or whether ... it seems to us that we should adopt a confidentiality provision. So, [it's] that threshold question of whether a confidentiality provision is something that we want or don't want. And I suppose if the other members believe that we do need a confidentiality provision of some sort, then I don't need to hear from them, but that's my question to the other committee members. Number 1340 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he thinks there should be a confidentiality provision. He said that "these are very, very confidential communications," and if a person goes to seek counseling from a clergy person in a confidential setting, "that ought to be respected." He referred to the recent revelations of sexual abuse, and said that to his knowledge, every case was "done outside of the confidences." Referring to the Alaska Rules of Evidence, he noted that "priest penitent," more broadly defined as "confidential communication with a clergy," is very strongly respected. He stated that if the committee adopted some kind of confidentiality provision, he would ask that something similar be put in the elder abuse law.. He relayed that Karleen Jackson, Deputy Commissioner, [Office of the Commissioner], Department of Health & Social Services [DHSS], told him that [the DHSS] wants child abuse and elder abuse to have the same standards regarding [confidentiality provisions]. CHAIR McGUIRE said she has spent much time contemplating this issue. She said she wondered "whether it was fair to the children [who] were being abused." She asked, "Whose rights are we putting first?" She said child abuse is a terrible thing, with lifelong ramifications, and stated her concern that "those abuses will be revealed and nothing will be done about them." Noting that religion is an important part of society and the church is an important part of many people's lives, she stated that criminalizing priests and clergy for doing what they believe is within the cannons of their church is not the goal of the committee. CHAIR McGUIRE said she would support a very narrow exception, adding that it is her belief that most of what occurs is to be reported by law. She said she would encourage members of the clergy to advise their parishioners who are abusing children to seek help and report it to the civil authorities. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he agreed that it doesn't do any good [for the legislature] to put into law that they report, if they're not going to report because of their cannons and beliefs. He said that he would hate to criminalize somebody whose job is to help people. He continued as follows: And I would also echo what [Chair McGuire] said on ... "very narrow." Just because you're a catholic priest doesn't mean, when somebody tells you something, that it's in confession, or just because you are a minister does not mean that it is confidential. There's got to be a pretty bright line .... So, I would support having the exemption. Number 1642 REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated that it was also a very difficult issue for him. He added: The bill that came to this committee included a provision that would have allowed many instances of child abuse not to be reported. I think we've done a good job in limiting the circumstances where ... that would happen. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated, "The bill we're talking about here is not in place." He said he is looking at ten amendments which would change the bill considerably. He suggested taking up the amendments before debating the bill. CHAIR McGUIRE said she had been allowing some latitude for members to speak to the broader philosophical question regarding whether any exemption should be provided. She said, "This bill would clearly do that, and the amendments would clarify that particular choice." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that he does not agree with Representative Gara's assessment that reporting neglect is a simple and easy thing to put in the bill, adding that he has objection to such a provision. He said that until the amendments are in place, it is difficult for him to make an assessment of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE OGG said he believed the question that Representative Gara asked was whether to favor no restrictions or favor strict confidentiality. He stated that he favors "a strict statement of what confidentiality is." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that although he'd had specific amendments prepared affecting Sections 2 and 3, he has decided not to offer those specific amendments. On the issue of reporting neglect, he said that although the House State Affairs Standing Committee eliminated the reporting of neglect, he has since decided that he does want neglect to be reported. Number 1882 CHAIR McGUIRE noted that Representative Holm had been absent at the time the committee discussed the issue of reinserting the reporting of neglect. She indicated that because of testimony provided by the Division of Family & Youth Services (DFYS), the Alaska Catholic Conference, and the sponsor at the prior hearing, the committee had agreed to reinsert the reporting of neglect. She added, "It was in the elder abuse statute, [and] it's the right thing to do." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM indicated that his problem with requiring the reporting of neglect is that the term is subjective. He noted that there are two definitions of neglect: one is in the Child In Need Of Aid (CINA) regulations, and the other is in state law. He stated his understanding that the two are not the same, adding that the CINA definition is stricter. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM continued: But my point is ... that the problem with neglect is it's ... a view of someone who looks at how other folks live and says that they've been neglected or not neglected. Now I'm not promoting any child to be neglected. Lord knows, I grew up in a homestead, where people could have accused my parents of neglecting me, because we didn't have any of the amenities that the people that lived in town did. But what I did have is ... good parenting, and I had love. I had a lot of things that have nothing to do with nice clothes and new shoes and any of those things. So, I'm a little sensitive to this from a personal standpoint because I want to give pastors and churches the ability to uplift, to bring people up, to elevate them without being penitent, without being accusatory, without feeling as if they're going to have to judge folks, based upon some inappropriate judgment. ... It really has nothing to do with whether or not a person can or cannot be neglectful of their children, but whose making that choice? And to penalize, or to take a member of the clergy, who is a member of the clergy for the purpose of helping ... every person [who] comes to them, regardless of where they come from, I think ... it's a bad message. ... I ... think we could probably all agree what child abuse is, but I'm not sure you can use the word "neglect" because neglect's too soft a word for me. Number 2049 Neglect means that what? Maybe the mother left the child in the car and went out and got drunk - good case for neglect. [Maybe] she ... left the car and ... went in to get ... milk. Is that neglect? Well, you could make the case it's neglect if, in fact, somebody broke into the car and hurt the child. You could make the case if she left the child in the car and it was 100 [degrees] above [zero]. ... But I don't think neglect is as firm a word or as good a word to use, even though it's in law. ... We can write them down in a book, but that doesn't mean the pastor who is sitting in the church reads the law book. ... They only know neglect based upon their history; they don't [know] what neglect is based upon you and I sitting here ... telling them neglect means such and such. So I think it's so nebulous of an area that it's just tough for me to buy, ... putting it into law like this. ... I think it's one of those words that can be misused by overzealous members of [the DHSS]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "That was the thinking that carried the day in the [House] State Affairs Committee." He stated, "I have changed my position since then." CHAIR McGUIRE told Representative Holm that she appreciates what he is saying, but said, "On this one, I err on the side of the child." Number 2142 CHAIR McGUIRE moved to adopt [Conceptual] Amendment 1 [text provided previously]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated that he would object to each one of [the amendments] so that he could read them in context with the bill. REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said that he has no objection to [Conceptual] Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that the bill [with Conceptual Amendment 1] would read as follows [on page 2, line 14]: confidential communication made to the clergy member in the course of discipline enjoined by the church REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked for the definition of "in the course of discipline enjoined by the church". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that "discipline" is in the course of their official function"; however, he stated that he is not sure of the meaning of the word "enjoined". CHAIR McGUIRE noted that "this was taken from Idaho." REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what is wrong with "ecclesiastical capacity". He asked if the concern is that it only applies to religions that believe in a god. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Block to clarify the issue. MR. BLOCK reiterated his point that the term ["ecclesiastical capacity"] tends to connote a more ritualistic, ceremonial, or organized form of ordination. He said that his suggestion had been to remove the abundance of language in the Idaho version that would tend towards the more ceremonial and ritualistic circumstance, and make it more open. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "That was persuasive to me at the time and it is now." REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that [his staff] has just informed him that the word "ecclesiastical" is the Latin word for "church." WILLIAM MOFFATT, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, said removing that word would be fine. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said, "So we're just getting rid of the word 'ecclesiastical'." REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to a question, said he maintains his objection. Number 2322 REPRESENTATIVE OGG suggested that the word "ecclesiastical" be replaced by the word "religious" [on page 2, line 14]. CHAIR McGUIRE called it a friendly amendment to [Conceptual Amendment 1]. Thus [Conceptual] Amendment 1 would now read: Page 2, line 14 Delete "ecclesiastical" Insert "religious" CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were objections to [Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he had no objection. Number 2340 Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted. CHAIR McGUIRE announced that all the amendments would be conceptual so that the drafters could alter them as needed in order to "make this work." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the language on page 2, line 15, said, "I assume that ... means in the course of discipline sanctioned by the church (indisc.)." He suggested replacing "enjoined" with "sanctioned." Number 2361 CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to Representative Gruenberg, [made a motion to adopt] Conceptual Amendment 2, as follows: Page 2, line 15 Delete "enjoined" Insert "sanctioned" There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Mr. Smith's previously stated suggestion to strike the words "and strictly" [from page 2, line 19]. TAPE 03-35, SIDE B Number 2380 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered Conceptual Amendment 3, to delete the words "and strictly" from page 2, line 19. REPRESENTATIVES SAMUELS and GARA objected. CHAIR McGUIRE said she likes "specifically and strictly", because it makes the language clear. REPRESENTATIVE GARA concurred with Chair McGuire. He elaborated: We are trying to keep this confidentiality provision ... as narrow as possible, because I want as much abuse and neglect to be reported as possible, without offending the major tenets of a religion. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3. [The next amendment was also given the name, "Conceptual Amendment 3."] Number 2328 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt Conceptual] Amendment 3, which read [original punctuation provided]: At P. 2 ln 20 Delete "church" Insert "religious" There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE OGG referred to the previously stated comments [by Mr. Smith], regarding [page 2, beginning on line 15]: "if (1) the church qualifies as tax-exempt under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) (Internal Revenue Code)". He suggested inserting "could qualify" instead of "qualifies". He said, "To me, 'qualifies' says you either are qualified or you can, when you use the 'qualifies' term," but acknowledged that others might not have this same understanding. CHAIR McGUIRE noted, however, that they didn't want everybody using the exemption. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS relayed that he is not familiar with what the qualifications are for that status. REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that there is a list of qualifications, adding that some organizations which do qualify apply for the status and some don't. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested using instead the term, "qualifies or [meets] the standards". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that using the term "would qualify" would be sufficient. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM agreed. Number 2212 REPRESENTATIVE OGG [made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4]: Page 2, line 16 Delete "qualifies" Insert "would qualify" There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted. Number 2199 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt Conceptual] Amendment 5, as follows: Page 2, line 28 After "ordained" Insert ", licensed," There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG began discussion of Conceptual Amendment 6, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 29, After "the", insert "laws," After "ceremonial, [sic]" insert "or" After "ritual" insert "practices" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested adopting Conceptual Amendment 6 in three parts. CHAIR McGUIRE pointed out, however, that as a whole, Conceptual Amendment 6 would change the language on line 29 to read: "accordance with the laws, ceremonial or ritual practices, or discipline". Number 2128 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 6 as a whole]. CHAIR McGUIRE objected. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if there would be a problem using the term, "the laws of a religious organization". REPRESENTATIVE LYNN replied that he did not have a problem with that term, because some churches have what is called "cannon law." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added that the Catholic Church has [cannon law] and the Jewish faith has Talmudic law. REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected to the insertion of the word "practices". He elaborated: I think the inclusion of the word "practices" allows us to include somebody as a clergy member who, in the church's day-to-day practice, is somebody who receives confidential communications. That could be somebody who we don't really regard as a clergy member. That could be ... somebody who we regard as just a counselor. I think that threatens to make the people to whom these confidential communications can go to, and the people ... who won't have to report abuse and neglect, too broad. So ... I think that this would allow ... counselors within a religion to refrain from reporting abuse and neglect. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the phrase is "ceremonial or ritual practices". CHAIR McGUIRE concurred, adding that "ceremonial or ritual practices" is one concept. REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew his objection. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to Conceptual Amendment 6. Number 1999 CHIP WAGONER, Lobbyist for the Alaska Catholic Conference, after noting that the Alaska Catholic Conference is made up of the three Roman Catholic bishops of Alaska, opined that a slight drafting error has been made [in Section 3]. He elaborated: Clergy members are required to report, under this bill. We want clergy members to be required to report, under this bill. But, if you define clergy member as only those people who hear confessions and/or confidential communications, then those clergy members that don't hear confessions and confidential communications would not be mandatory reporters. Number 1943 CHAIR McGUIRE surmised, then, that perhaps an amendment defining "clergy" is needed, unless [the committee] wants to leave the [current] definition and delete, from page 2, line 31, "to hear confessions and confidential communications". [The latter concept was later moved as Conceptual Amendment 8.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, however, that [Conceptual Amendment 7] strikes "and" from line 31 and puts in "or". Number 1903 CHAIR McGUIRE, turning back to the issue of Amendment 6 and indicating that there was no longer any objection, announced that Conceptual Amendment 6 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that [Justin Roberts, one of his staff members] has just told him that "this definition is throughout this bill"; therefore, "unless you hear confessions or confidential communications, you won't even have to report." CHAIR McGUIRE said, "Right; that's why we're going to strike it." Number 1882 CHAIR McGUIRE [moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7], which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 31 after "confessions" Delete "and" Insert "or" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said: If we do this, and I don't know if this is where Mr. Wagoner was coming from, but Justin said that what -- there are two things here. One question is who reports. And if clergy people are required to report - clergy members - and we limit it to people who hear confessions ... or confidential communications, then clergy members who don't hear those don't have to report. What we want to do is make everybody report, but only have the people who [hear] confessions or [confidential communications] have the privilege. CHAIR McGUIRE said, "Absolutely." She surmised, then, that Representative Gruenberg's comment was support for Conceptual Amendment 7 rather than objection to it. She opined that by inserting "or" in place of "and" on line 31, "we are getting at exactly what you said, which is, we are allowing both types in for the privilege, and in for the reporting." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wasn't sure. He asked Mr. Roberts to speak. Number 1838 JUSTIN ROBERTS, Staff to Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska State Legislature, said: [If] you don't hear either confessions or confidential communications, then you wouldn't be required to report. So somebody that doesn't hear either ... REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "That's what my concern is." Number 1830 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [renewed Chair McGuire's motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7]. Number 1827 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt the following [which became Conceptual Amendment 8]: But then I'll offer another conceptual amendment for the drafters and ... the staff to make certain that, what we want is, everybody reports, but only the people who hear confessions or confidential communications have a privilege. CHAIR McGUIRE said, "Perfect." Number 1821 CHAIR McGUIRE asked if there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment [7]. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 7 was adopted. Number 1818 CHAIR McGUIRE asked if there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment 8. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 8 was adopted. MR. BLOCK, in reference to Conceptual Amendment 5, pointed out that he had asked that the word "listed" be used in the definition of a clergy member [on page 2, line 28], because Christian Science practitioners are neither ordained nor licensed. In response to Representatives Gruenberg and Ogg, he clarified that it had been Mr. Smith, not he, who had offered the word "licensed". CHAIR McGUIRE opined that the term, "set apart" would addresses Mr. Block's concern. MR. BLOCK responded that if the words "otherwise set apart" were used, [that would be] okay. Number 1748 CHAIR McGUIRE reminded Mr. Block that public testimony was closed. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he wanted the legislative history to reflect that the words, "or set apart" means exactly what Mr. Block has just said. CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the record is now clear that "or set apart" can include the Christian Science practice of listing clergy. REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated, "The record is now muddled." He elaborated: The questioner actually inserted something that none of us intend and something that some of us do intend. I believe that what we intend to do, and unless I hear any objection, what we mean to do is for this to read, "who has been ordained, licensed, or otherwise set apart". So, we all mean to insert the word "otherwise" in concept, but we believe it's covered, as written, so we're not going to insert the word. That's what we mean to accept from ... CHAIR McGUIRE said, "That's right." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, at the same time, said, "That's the amendment." REPRESENTATIVE GARA concluded, "That's what we agree to." [Although there was no motion to insert either "listed" or "otherwise", the drafters later, at the request of the Chair, inserted the word "listed" into the House Judiciary Standing Committee's final version of the bill as part of Conceptual Amendment 5.] Number 1699 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt [Conceptual Amendment 9], to be inserted at the end of Section 2, [original punctuation provided]: (c) nothing in this section shall prevent a clergy member from reporting an instance of child abuse or neglect. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 9 was adopted. Number 1678 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that "we do, conceptually, the same thing for the elder abuse law." REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested to Representative Gruenberg that he do that in a separate bill. REPRESENTATIVE Gruenberg said, "That's fine." REPRESENTATIVE OGG recommended that the committee hold HB 92 over for the purpose of reviewing the drafter's finished product. CHAIR McGUIRE stated that she would prefer to see the bill moved from committee. She said that the finished product would be brought to members' offices, and offered that if there is a problem, the legislation can either be pulled back into the House Judiciary Standing Committee or altered in the House Rules Standing Committee. Number 1620 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 92, Version 23-LS0257, Lauterbach, 4/8/03, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 92(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|