Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/27/2018 06:30 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HCR23 | |
| HB354 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 354 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HCR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 315 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HCR 23-PROTECT WILDLIFE FROM FOREIGN PATHOGENS
7:24:54 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 23, Supporting enhanced efforts
to protect wildlife and domestic animals in the state from
infectious diseases, foreign pathogens, and nonendemic
parasites.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted public testimony on HCR 23 was closed at the
resolution's last hearing and that testimony at tonight's
hearing would be invited testimony only.
7:25:59 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested the committee hear from the
state veterinarian or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) before taking up amendments.
CO-CHAIR TARR withdrew the motion to adopt Amendment 1.
7:26:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested Dr. Gerlach to provide an
overview of how he, as the state veterinarian, fills his
responsibility to manage [Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi), a
respiratory pathogen of wild and domestic sheep and goats]. She
further asked what Dr. Gerlach thinks lawmakers should do.
ROBERT GERLACH, DVM, State Veterinarian, Division of
Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), replied the responsibility of the Office of the State
Veterinarian is to maintain animal health and to control issues
such as outbreak of disease that would threaten populations of
animals and to move forward in reducing that threat. He added
that this authority is spread over both wild and domestic
animals that are living as well as dead.
DR. GERLACH stressed that M. ovi is a very complicated issue.
The [current] general understanding, he explained, is from the
issues and events that have happened in the Lower 48 with a
different population of animals that are under different
stressors than is had in Alaska's population. With the current
concern, his office began a surveillance program in domestic
animals to determine the prevalence of the pathogen in Alaska's
domestic sheep and goats. His office is working with producers
to understand how they manage their herds and flocks for bio-
security of their health to prevent introduction and spread of
disease. At the same time, he continued, ADF&G began a study
looking at the many different Mycoplasma species - including M.
ovi - and those test results detected M. ovi in [wild] sheep and
goats throughout the state.
DR. GERLACH said his office and ADF&G are working to understand
how the strains in wild populations and the strains in domestic
livestock are related. Next is to understand the implications
of that and whether there is any stress to Alaska's wild or
domestic animals. His office and ADF&G are currently in the
early stages of that finding, he continued, but the good news is
that at this time ADF&G hasn't detected any negative impacts in
the [wild] populations in which the M. ovi was found. The same
has occurred with the domestic population where the prevalence
of M. ovi is about 4 percent. The prevalence in wildlife is yet
to be determined, but early indications are between 9 and 12
percent of the individual population, but not many animals
overall have been tested. There are about 1,000 more samples
that ADF&G has collected and sent for analysis, he added, and
these will provide further information on this particular
pathogen and help in understanding what the threats are, what
threats are of concern, if any, and what actions can be taken
besides the direct action that is being worked on with producers
to decrease wild and domestic stock interaction. He pointed out
the concern isn't just M. ovi - many pathogens can be spread
between wildlife and domestic animals.
7:31:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER observed from an ADF&G document that
ADF&G has detected nine more cases of M. ovi in Dall sheep. He
inquired how the state veterinarian's office is or is not
interacting with ADFG.
DR. GERLACH responded that test findings are being shared
between the wildlife biologist and wildlife veterinarian in
ADF&G and the director in his office, as well as the
interpretation of that data.
7:33:54 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR observed a 3/20/18 press release states that new
findings suggest the pathogen is more widespread and that three
strains have been identified in preliminary analysis. She
offered her understanding that there is more concern about the
M. ovi, but asked whether there is concern about the other
strains identified or if it is still too early to know.
DR. GERLACH answered that an understanding of this is still at
the very early stages. Multiple strains of M. ovi have been
identified, he said, as well as some detection of other
Mycoplasma, such as Mycoplasma conjunctiva and a Mycoplasma
conjunctiva-like organism, along with others that are still yet
to be identified. The difference between what is being seen in
Alaska compared to the Lower 48 is that the Lower 48 has had
sporadic die-offs and mortality events for the past 40-50 years
in bighorn sheep that have been studied for this. Only recently
has M. ovi been identified as a primary pathogen in this disease
process. In that regard, he continued, it is very difficult to
look at and to understand all that is involved with respect to
the current findings in Alaska.
7:35:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, referring to the map provided in the
committee packet, observed that the areas with positive M. ovi
test results go all the way up to the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) and nearly as far south as Seward, as well as in
Game Management Unit 13, and "below Tok, going out to the
Canadian border." Given how large of an area this is, he
requested Dr. Gerlach to provide his opinion as to how
widespread this pathogen really is.
DR. GERLACH replied the identification of such widespread
distribution from the Brooks Range to the Kenai Peninsula
requires looking at alternative understandings of the initial
identification of this organism as non-endemic. There isn't a
lot of interaction with livestock in some of these far-reaching
populations and there aren't very close connections between some
of these populations, like the ones on the North Slope and the
other populations identified. So, he said, from a scientific
standpoint there must be a questioning of how to interpret and
understand this new information.
DR. GERLACH stated it is going to be very important to test this
species that may then be able to carry and distribute this
pathogen, and that gets down to more basic scientific
understanding of the pathogen. Initially it was understood that
it was just carried by Caprinae sheep, goats, muskoxen. But,
he continued, if other species could carry this and be a vector,
then maybe that is how the pathogen was transmitted and
interacting through these widespread populations. Or, he said,
maybe this is a different strain of a pathogen or bacteria in
the wild population and it is unknown for how long. While that
may seem unlikely, he noted, he thinks it is something that
needs to be considered to understand what is going on here.
DR. GERLACH offered his belief that the information ADF&G has
gathered with this very important study is going to be
groundbreaking in the understanding of this particular pathogen,
the interaction now between wildlife and domestic animals, and
how to deal with these interactions and the possible
transmission of pathogens between the two groups.
7:40:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER recalled that previous discussions were
looking at roughly 4 percent on the domestic side and 4 percent
on the wildlife side as far as those that may have M. ovi.
Given the new information, he inquired whether this could be the
tip of an iceberg.
DR. GERLACH responded it is very possible. An understanding of
some of these pathogens, he explained, is that their prevalence
can be dependent on the overall population density of the
animals. In an animal population that is widespread and not
concentrated, there may be less chance for that pathogen to be
spread among those animals if direct contact is needed, and so
there would be low prevalence. That would be reflective of what
is seen with [Alaska's] domestic animals, because in larger
herds or flocks in the Lower 48 there is a larger prevalence,
which has been noted by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
studies. The populations in Alaska are smaller and widespread
and have a lower incidence, which supports that theory.
DR. GERLACH added that as ADF&G does more testing and evaluation
of wildlife it may be found that the prevalence of the M. ovi is
less in certain areas where the populations are widespread or
there aren't congregation points where the pathogen can be
spread. He described it as being similar to what is seen when
children are healthy and running around the house but once
school starts they are in close connection in a schoolroom and
one person with a cold virus spreads it to the others who then
bring it home to their families. So, he continued, it is a
density issue with respect to interaction and the ability to
spread that pathogen and then the overall prevalence.
7:42:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether more [test] results would be
coming in next week.
DR. GERLACH explained the lab processes the tests in batches, so
there can be a slow trickle or lumps of information at a time
returned to ADF&G depending on the workload at the laboratories.
The process can be slower than some diagnostic laboratories, he
said, because after the initial test is run the actual DNA
material from the pathogen is collected and sent off to another
laboratory where it is genetically sequenced to identify the
specific strain of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired whether, after receiving a few
genetic sequences, single nucleotide polymorphisms will be used
to estimate how closely related these various strains are and
how long they have been present in Alaska's game populations.
DR. GERLACH replied that that is exactly what the scientists
working on this hope to identify. They will set up a phylogeny
tree to look at relatedness between those. Then they may look
at specific gene points for changes or mutations in those gene
points to make predictions about how long they may have been in
the population, which would give a better idea of the biology of
this particular pathogen.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said he looks forward to getting an update
on that and, if possible, to learning where the source
ultimately came from in broad terms, such as from another wild
goat or sheep population in the Lower 48 or from domestic stock.
DR. GERLACH responded that result is definitely what ADF&G hopes
to obtain in its important work to understand this particular
pathogen and its effect on wildlife and domestic populations.
7:46:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH noted that no Dall sheep or mountain goats
have died from this affliction. He observed from the map that a
couple of the animals were east of Prudhoe Bay and maybe east of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) on the North Slope.
He asked whether Dr. Gerlach has any ideas given this doesn't
seem to be an area where there would be many domesticated
[animals] that could have impacted this population.
DR. GERLACH agreed and added that it looks like this is a very
isolated population. He said it will be interesting to see how
the strain of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae that is identified in
those particular animals relates back to different groups
whether it is different than the group from GMU 26B and GMU 26C
and if that is different from what is found in GMU 13. There is
much to learn, he continued, including the impact and negative
response on a wildlife population and whether there is time to
gather and understand this to make appropriate decisions in
management. He said it is much easier for him to control and
manage a domestic population that is confined and easy to
identify and regulate. But management is very complicated when
dealing with wildlife where oftentimes populations cannot be
totally identified and can be very widespread. He offered his
appreciation to ADF&G biologists for their work.
7:48:51 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON inquired whether there are strains of M. ovi
that are fatal to wild, but not domestic, animals.
DR. GERLACH explained that different strains of M. ovi seem to
have different virulence factors that make them more likely to
cause respiratory infection given the right combination. This
respiratory disease is very complex in regard to how it exhibits
itself in both wild and domestic animals. Generally a specific
set of factors is needed with the mycoplasma as well as other
respiratory pathogens present and oftentimes other stressors on
the animal's condition, he said. The stressor can be related to
genetic susceptibility, population density, nutrition, and to
animal concentrations, access to water, and other resources. It
makes it very difficult to go ahead since not much is known
about this pathogen with respect to other pathogens. For
example, Dr. Gerlach continued, the Pasteurella bacteria has
been studied for 40-100 years in both wild and domestic animals.
Certain genes have been identified on these Pasteurella that
produce certain toxins. One known gene produces toxins that
affect the white blood cells and these strains are much more
virulent and deadly to animals than the strains that do not have
those lipotoxin genes. Not much is known about the whole
genomic structure of these mycoplasma, he noted, and this is one
reason why ADF&G's study is so critical to understanding and to
future management of both the wild and domestic populations.
7:51:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to page 2, first bullet, of the
document provided by the Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation, which
states that M. ovi is a foreign pathogen not endemic to Alaska
wildlife. He asked whether it's possible there is an M. ovi
that is endemic to Alaskan wildlife.
DR GERLACH answered he thinks that needs to be considered given
the recent identification in remote populations. It needs to be
tested in a scientific manner to be able to prove that point.
He said it's important to make management decisions for both
domestic and wild populations based on fact in science and to
not be swayed by fear and emotion. The focus needs to be on
what is had at hand and what the understanding is. That is not
say there is a guarantee, he added, because no can give a
guarantee on dealing with any disease or medical condition as
there is always a number of factors involved. By looking at
what the impact on the population is now and closely monitoring
them, he continued, management decisions can be made that are
going to be most effective to the population without causing
undue harm or damage to the overall use of that wildlife and
domestic resource for the residents of the state of Alaska.
7:53:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked whether Dr. Gerlach is reasonably
confident that the strain or strains will be identified in the
very near future.
DR. GERLACH replied that strain typing is being done on just one
portion of the entire genome or DNA sequence of Mycoplasma
ovipneumoniae, so there will be limitations and restrictions in
understanding the strain according to that. The only true
evaluation of strains occurs when there is whole genomic
sequencing and that probably won't happen any time soon. For
example, he explained, it was not too long ago that the human
genome was totally sequenced, and this took over 10 years of
very intense research. Given the understanding of specific
portions of the genomic sequence of the M. ovi, he said, experts
in this field should be able to make some very good predictions
by looking at those comparisons and getting a better
understanding of the relatedness to them and the possibility of
how long they may have been circulating in these populations.
7:56:03 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-LS1434\A.1,
Gardner, 3/21/18, which read:
Page 1, line 6, following the first occurrence of
"the":
Insert "livestock and"
Page 1, line 13, following "science-based":
Insert "livestock and"
Page 2, line 2, following "to":
Insert "domestic animals and"
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH objected for purposes of
discussion.
7:57:03 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR explained the amendments she is offering to the
committee came through working with the Alaska Farm Bureau, Inc.
and trying to strike the right balance between the concerns and
the potential for growth in Alaska's livestock industry. She
noted the title of HCR 23 states, "Supporting enhanced efforts
to protect wildlife and domestic animals". However, she
continued, domestic animals are not referenced in the WHEREAS
clauses. Amendment 1 would add "livestock and" in two places
and ["domestic animals and" in one place]. This would ensure
that both wild and domestic animals are referenced, she said.
7:58:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated he has some trouble with the
proposed language of Amendment 1 because he believes the
language in the bill on page 2, lines 4-8, and the WHEREAS
clause following those lines gets to the purpose of the title.
To the specific changes proposed by Amendment 1, he said the
bill's present language reads true and stands well on its own.
While he personally recognizes the value of domestic animals, he
stated, he has trouble diluting the message in this way.
Additionally, he continued, he isn't sure it's completely true
that the state subscribes to science-based livestock management
because fundamentally the entity that manages livestock is
private individuals and not the state. Private individuals
manage livestock, he added, while wildlife is a common
possession that belongs to every Alaskan and it is very
appropriate the state manage wildlife in common.
8:00:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO stated the title of the resolution does
refer to both wildlife and domestic animals, but beyond that
there is no mention of livestock or domestic animals. It is his
dream, he said, that as things advance forward everyone comes to
the table to deal with this. Based on his conversations with
people on both sides of the issue, he said, it is appropriate
there not be a disconnect at any point in the resolution. He
doesn't want to see a big divide, he continued, and he supports
Amendment 1 because the proposed language is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he isn't speaking for or against
Amendment 1, but noted the definition of "intrinsic" is
eradicable and he is wondering how that fits.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON agreed with Representative Parish's points.
8:03:19 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out the state is involved any time that
livestock is imported into Alaska and strict safeguards are in
place.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH maintained his objection to Amendment 1.
8:03:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rauscher, Talerico,
Lincoln, Drummond, Birch, Johnson, and Tarr voted in favor of
Amendment 1. Representatives Parish and Josephson voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 7-2.
8:04:49 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 30-LS1434\A.2,
Gardner, 3/21/18, which read:
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new resolution clause to read:
"WHEREAS Alaska's livestock industry has the greatest
potential to provide protein for Alaska's food
security; and"
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH objected.
8:04:58 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR explained that Amendment 2 also came up in her
talks with agriculture folks. She reminded members of the
enthusiasm it has heard this session specifically for livestock
production and noted the budget is being looked at to fund a
veterinarian in the Division of Agriculture so the division can
do more in that area.
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt a friendly amendment to Amendment 2
as follows:
Delete "the greatest"
Insert "great"
CO-CHAIR TARR explained this friendly amendment would be more
accurate and is an effort toward bringing everyone together on
this issue.
There being no objection, the friendly amendment to Amendment 2
was adopted. Amendment 2, as amended, read as follows:
WHEREAS Alaska's livestock industry has great
potential to provide protein for Alaska' food
security, and
8:06:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated that the effort throughout [HCR 23]
is to pair domestic and wildlife and therefore it would seem
appropriate to have some nod to the importance of wild game as a
protein source. However, he continued, he doesn't have language
drafted to that effect and he doesn't intend to conceptually
amend Amendment 2. He offered his appreciation for the friendly
amendment and withdrew his objection to Amendment 2.
8:06:55 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected to Amendment 2, as amended. He said
he is concerned because the overwhelming support he has received
was for the resolution as previously written (80 for, 5
against). The support was almost entirely from people concerned
about wild sheep populations, he continued, and he is afraid the
committee has already lost track of that. Were it another state
where there was a robust industry of domestic husbandry of
animals he would view this differently and certainly the economy
and politics of it would be different. The impetus for HCR 23,
he explained, was a real concern for what had happened to wild
populations in the Western states and the amendment takes this
away from the resolution. It is arguably a true statement
standing alone, he said, but it takes the resolution further
away from what was supposed to be principally, but not entirely,
on infectious diseases in wildlife.
8:08:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH agreed with Co-Chair Josephson, sponsor of
HCR 23. He said Amendment 2, as amended, takes away from the
emphasis. The emphasis and focus of the resolution have been on
the wildlife resources more than the domestics, he said, and he
will vote no on the amendment.
8:09:12 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her closing comments on Amendment 2, as
amended. If this gets pushed in the direction of one resource
over the other, she said, her concern is the history that
brought this conversation to the committee, which was an attempt
to eliminate the livestock industry from Alaska as a result of
concerns. Many things happened at the Board of Game and a
working group was formed. She said she wants it to be clear
from her perspective that there is a way to do science-based
management that can protect both the state's wildlife and
domestic animals and allow for growth in this segment of the
state's agriculture industry at a time when it is really needed
for food security as well as economic opportunity. There is
concern from the agriculture side of things, she noted, that
these positive test results are not well understood and not
clear on where the exposure occurred or how long ago. So far a
lot of the pressure has been in the direction of it being a more
recent interaction with a domestic animal, but it was heard from
the scientists that there is no real evidence of that. She said
for these reasons she wants to strive for balance. While the
concern is real, she added, it overwhelms the opportunity for
livestock folks.
8:11:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER commented that with everything he has
been reading and with more information to come forward next
week, his thought is that more questions should be asked before
going further.
8:11:55 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johnson, Drummond,
and Tarr voted in favor of Amendment 2, as amended.
Representatives Talerico, Lincoln, Parish, Birch, Rauscher, and
Josephson voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2, as amended,
failed by a vote of 3-6.
8:13:20 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR stated she would not offer Amendment 3.
8:13:23 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 30-LS1434\A.4,
Gardner, 3/21/18, which read:
Page 2, lines 9 - 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature
encourages agencies to gather information, perform
tests, and collect data on infectious diseases,
foreign pathogens, and nonendemic parasites in the
state to make science-based management decisions to
protect the state's wildlife and domestic animals from
infectious diseases, foreign pathogens, and nonendemic
parasites; and be it"
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected to Amendment 4 for purposes of
discussion.
8:13:33 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR explained Amendment 4 has the same basic thought
as the original bill language, but is a bit more descriptive in
that it is more specific in what the enhanced efforts might be.
She said it also suggests support for doing the testing, which
was brought forward as something the [Alaska] Wild Sheep
Foundation supports. The key thing here, she added, is the
gathering of information and performing of tests to ensure there
aren't inaccurate suggestions about the prevalence of this
particular pathogen, its origin, and its potential to cause
problems in Alaska's wild populations.
8:15:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated his concern with Amendment 4 is
that it doesn't speak to preventative measures. For example, he
said, he would like to see better buffers between wild
populations and domestic populations for many of the same
reasons that he is very dubious of fish farming. He wouldn't
want to wait necessarily for information to be gathered, tests
to be performed, and data collected before saying don't put a
fish farm near his backyard. He maintained that Amendment 4
narrows the scope of what goes into protection.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her appreciation for Representative
Parish's concern but said that that is not the intention. The
intention is to be more descriptive in terms of what things need
to be done. There is strong support for the testing and the
data collection, she continued, particularly to understand the
distribution and prevalence in the different populations. She
suggested a friendly amendment could be offered that says
something such as "perform tests, collect data, and consider
preventative measures".
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said he would defer to Co-Chair Josephson
or Representative Lincoln.
8:17:26 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said his concern with Amendment 4 is the
deletion of lines 9-11 because of the loss of the notions that
were mentioned by Representative Parish about the need to
protect the state's wildlife as well. He could support the
amendment, he continued, if it were in addition to lines 9-11.
CO-CHAIR TARR related that Representative Lincoln pointed out
that the language on page 2, line 17, talks about engaging
actions to prevent the spread of those diseases. She asked
whether Co-Chair Josephson would like to offer a friendly
amendment that would delete the language "Page 2, lines 9-11:
Delete all material and insert" and replace it with "Page 2,
following lines 9-11 insert".
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON deferred to Representative Drummond.
8:18:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said everything that is in lines 9-11 is
included in Amendment 4 except for the words "supports enhanced
efforts". The scope of management certainly includes prevention
efforts, she continued. Except for the lack of the word
"enhanced" efforts this is a good amendment, she added, and this
is just an adjective that says, "Get to work guys". The
resolution is telling the agencies what they need to be doing
and this amendment enhances that.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said Representative Drummond's point is well
taken and he no longer seeks Co-Chair Tarr's friendly amendment.
8:20:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH maintained his objection to Amendment 4.
8:20:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated the resolution is well intended and
the amendment seems fine as well as neutral. He urged that the
question be called.
8:21:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to
Amendment 4 as follows:
Line 5, following "science-based management decisions
to":
Insert "support enhanced efforts to"
8:21:53 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR said she considers the conceptual amendment a
friendly amendment and has no objection. There being no
objection, the conceptual amendment to Amendment 4 was adopted.
8:22:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH withdrew his objection to Amendment 4.
There being no further objection, Amendment 4, as amended, was
adopted.
8:22:28 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to report HCR 23, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHCR 23(RES) was
reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|