03/16/2009 08:00 AM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB2 | |
| HB152 | |
| HB101 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2009
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 2
"An Act relating to the issuance of a certificate of birth
resulting in a stillbirth."
- MOVED CSHB 2(HSS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 152
"An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as
recommended by the revisor of statutes; providing for an
effective date by repealing the effective date of sec. 33, ch.
122, SLA 1977; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 101
"An Act exempting the full value of life insurance and annuity
contracts from levy to satisfy unsecured debt, and amending the
description of earnings, income, cash, and other assets relating
to garnishment of life insurance proceeds payable upon the death
of an insured."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 2
SHORT TITLE: BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR STILLBIRTH
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GATTO
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) HSS, JUD
02/26/09 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/26/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/09 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/12/09 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/12/09 (H) Moved CSHB 2(HSS) Out of Committee
03/12/09 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/13/09 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) 4DP 2NR
03/13/09 (H) DP: LYNN, SEATON, COGHILL, KELLER
03/13/09 (H) NR: CISSNA, HERRON
03/16/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 152
SHORT TITLE: 2009 REVISOR'S BILL
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
02/25/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/09 (H) JUD
03/16/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 101
SHORT TITLE: EXEMPTIONS: LIFE INSURANCE; ANNUITIES
SPONSOR(S): COGHILL
01/30/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/09 (H) L&C, JUD
02/18/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/18/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/18/09 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/20/09 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 3NR
02/20/09 (H) DP: LYNN, CHENAULT, COGHILL
02/20/09 (H) NR: BUCH, HOLMES, OLSON
03/02/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/02/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/16/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SANDRA WILSON, Staff
Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 2 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Gatto.
MICHELLE HOYT
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 2, and asked the committee to support the bill.
KATHRYN KURTZ, Assistant Revisor
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the assistant revisor,
presented HB 152 on behalf of the Senate Rules Standing
Committee, sponsor by request of Legislative Council.
AMANDA MORTENSEN, Intern
Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 101 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Coghill.
DENNIS BAILEY, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the drafter during discussion of
HB 101.
LINDA HULBERT, Agent
New York Life Insurance Company
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 101.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:14 AM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives Ramras, Lynn,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Gatto were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 2 - BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR STILLBIRTH
8:03:29 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 2, "An Act relating to the issuance of a
certificate of birth resulting in a stillbirth." [Before the
committee was CSHB 2(HSS).]
8:03:55 AM
SANDRA WILSON, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 2 is intended to bring closure to
parents grieving over the loss of a stillborn child by providing
them with the option of obtaining a birth certificate for their
stillborn child, thereby validating their loss. Currently, she
relayed, 26 states offer such an option, and 7 other states are
considering legislation similar to HB 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, speaking as the sponsor of HB 2, mentioned
that back when the sponsor statement was written, only 25 states
offered such an option.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that during the Twenty-Fifth Alaska State
Legislature, legislation similar to HB 2 passed out of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether HB 2 differs from that past
legislation.
MS. WILSON said that [CSHB 2(HSS)] no longer uses the term
"stillborn"; only uses the term "stillbirth"; and uses
definitions already in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO characterized the issuance of a certificate
of birth resulting in stillbirth as a gift to grieving parents.
8:06:15 AM
MICHELLE HOYT relayed that she gave birth to her daughter, Haley
Inez (ph), on March 30, 2004, and that although her daughter was
born dead, she still had to go through the birthing process, and
do so while also going through the grieving process;
unfortunately, the State would only acknowledge that her
daughter died on that day, and not that she was also born on
that day. "How can you have a death certificate without a birth
certificate?" she asked, pointing out that she had to experience
the birthing process, her milk drying up, pregnancy-related
weight gain, depression, going home without a child, making
funeral arraignments, and paying all the same hospital bills
associated with having a child. She asked the committee to
support HB 2 in order that it may help bring closure to many
grieving parents by having the State acknowledge that their
stillborn children were actually born, that they were human
beings brought into the world just like all other children;
regardless that such grieving will never truly end, at least
parents will have what she characterized as a "positive" piece
of paper about their lost children.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 2.
8:07:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report [CSHB 2(HSS)] out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 2(HSS) was
reported from committee.
HB 152 - 2009 REVISOR'S BILL
8:08:02 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 152, "An Act making corrective amendments to the
Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes;
providing for an effective date by repealing the effective date
of sec. 33, ch. 122, SLA 1977; and providing for an effective
date."
The committee took an at-ease from 8:08 a.m. to 8:09 a.m.
8:09:44 AM
KATHRYN KURTZ, Assistant Revisor, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Division, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), explained that the revisor's bill, HB 152, is
designed to address conflicts, obsolete provisions, and
deficiencies in current statute, and that none of its provisions
are intended to effect substantive changes in statute. She
noted that members' have a sectional analysis in their packets.
MS. KURTZ, in response to a question, indicated that the
provisions that address statutory references to federal laws
which have been altered are all intended to make the statutes
more useful to the reader; for example, it is not helpful to the
reader when he/she finds a statutory reference to a provision of
federal law that no longer exists, and so the bill aims to point
the reader to useful information as opposed to obsolete
information.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed concern that some of the
changes in federal law were substantive.
MS. KURTZ, in response to questions regarding Section 1 and
Section 53, assured the committee that the revisor's bill is not
proposing to restructure the placement of the statutes
pertaining to the division of agriculture. In response to a
comment, she concurred that the revisor's bill is not intended
to make policy changes or substantive changes to law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that AS 01.05.006 references a
publishing company that no longer publishes the statutes,
questioned whether that statute ought to be updated.
MS. KURTZ explained that it's not necessary to do so because
that statute is simply referencing the company that published
the bulk formal revisions of the statutes at around the time of
statehood. In response to a question, she said she would be
hesitant to use the revisor's bill to clarify AS 01.05.006
because of the scope of change such a clarification would
require; she suggested that such a clarification ought to
instead come in the form of a substantive bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that such a clarification is not
worthy of a separate bill but should instead be undertaken via
the revisor's bill. He asked Ms. Kurtz to reconsider the issue.
8:22:35 AM
MS. KURTZ, in response to a question regarding Section 25,
explained that its proposed change would merely conform the
language in AS 15.45.160 to that of AS 15.45.140, and is
necessary in order for the statutes to conform to Article XI,
Section 3, of the Alaska State Constitution. In response to a
question regarding Section 50, she explained that the change
proposed therein is intended to make the second sentence in AS
29.60.860(b) conform to its first sentence. In response to a
question regarding Section 75, she explained that its proposed
change would conform the language in AS 47.10.396 to recently-
changed language in AS 47.10.392, AS 47.10.398, and AS
47.10.399, all of which now refer to corporations in general
rather than just nonprofit corporations. In response to a
question regarding Section 76, she explained that its proposed
change - along with the bill's proposal to delete AS
47.14.295(1) - would move the definition of the term "adult
family member" to the correct location where it would actually
be used; currently that definition is in the wrong location due
to a drafting error in Chapter 64, SLA 2005.
MS. KURTZ, in response to a question regarding Section 86,
explained that the only change it is proposing is the addition
of the phrase, "in the second degree" to Section 14, Chapter
137, SLA 2002 - a delayed amendment to the statutes that will
become effective December 30, 2013; all other seeming language
changes are just a reflection of the delayed amendment that
Section 14, Chapter 137, SLA 2002, will be making to AS
16.43.970(b). Adding the phrase, "in the second degree" is a
conforming change that should have been included in an
intervening amendment made via Section 16, Chapter 42, SLA 2006.
Without the change proposed in the revisor's bill, the
intervening amendment will unintentionally be nullified in 2013,
when the delayed amendment takes effect.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 152.
8:30:21 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-
LS0158\E.1, Kurtz, 3/4/09, which read:
Page 6, lines 10 - 12:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 48, line 22:
Delete "Section 89"
Insert "Section 88"
Page 48, line 27:
Delete "sec. 89"
Insert "sec. 88"
Page 48, line 28:
Delete "sec. 90"
Insert "sec. 89"
Page 48, line 29:
Delete "sec. 59"
Insert "sec. 58"
Page 48, line 30:
Delete "secs. 92 and 93"
Insert "secs. 91 and 92"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
MS. KURTZ explained that the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED) has indicated that it would prefer to have
Section 17 of the bill deleted, because it would codify a piece
of uncodified law - specifically Section 40(b), Chapter 83, SLA
1998 - and the EED would prefer to have that law repealed
instead of codified. However, repeal of this law would be a
substantive change and thus beyond the scope of the revisor's
bill, whereas adoption of Amendment 1 would result in this law
simply remaining part of uncodified law. In response to a
question, she maintained that repealing this uncodified law
would be beyond the scope of the revisor's authority under AS
01.05.036, which is meant to address deficiencies, conflicts, or
obsolete provisions in statute; Section 40(b), Chapter 83, SLA
1998, is not obsolete, and there is nothing about it that won't
work - it is simply directing the EED to define something via
regulation - and so the question of whether it should remain
part of uncodified law is a policy call for the legislature to
make.
8:32:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after noting that there were no further
objections, stated that Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 152, as amended, would be held
over.
HB 101 - EXEMPTIONS: LIFE INSURANCE; ANNUITIES
8:33:37 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 101, "An Act exempting the full value of life
insurance and annuity contracts from levy to satisfy unsecured
debt, and amending the description of earnings, income, cash,
and other assets relating to garnishment of life insurance
proceeds payable upon the death of an insured." [Before the
committee was the proposed committee substitute for HB 101,
Version 26-LS1076\E, Bailey, 2/19/09, which was adopted as the
work draft on 3/2/09.]
8:34:17 AM
AMANDA MORTENSEN, Intern, Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that HB 101 would exempt the full
value of life insurance and annuity [contracts] from attachment
by creditors, thereby protecting Alaskan families and their
ability to plan for their future. Retirement plans are
currently protected under federal law, and HB 101 would offer
similar protection to someone who, as an employee, uses an
annuity contract in lieu of a retirement plan. Section 1 of the
bill would remove the existing $10,000 exemption cap on life
insurance and annuity contracts, and Section 2 would remove the
words "or payable" [from AS 09.38.030(e)(4)] in order to clarify
a potential ambiguity regarding attempts to garnish the death
benefits of an individual who has not yet passed away.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MS. MORTENSEN, in response to a question, explained that
Version E no longer contains the word "unsecured" in the title;
this will allow the bill to apply to debts other than just
unsecured debts.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MS. MORTENSEN, in response to another question, explained that
HB 101 will not prevent creditors from garnishing a person's
other assets in order to satisfy a debt; again, the bill will
only protect the person's life insurance and annuity [contracts]
from attachment by creditors, thereby also protecting the
beneficiaries of such contracts. In response to a further
question, she offered her understanding that state law currently
protects other types of retirement plans.
8:38:25 AM
DENNIS BAILEY, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
concurred. In response to another question, he said that HB 101
removes the existing monetary limitation on the state's
protection of life insurance and annuity [contracts]. In
response to comments, he concurred that state law currently
prohibits the fraudulent use of such contracts, such as entering
into such a contract in order to avoid having to pay a debt.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES indicated that she is amenable to the
bill's proposal to remove the existing monetary limitation on
the state's protection of life insurance and annuity
[contracts].
MR. BAILEY, in response to a question, explained that removing
the word "unsecured" from the title clarifies that [the
provisions of the bill] could be applied regardless of whether
the debt is unsecured. In response to other questions, he
assured the committee that banks are aware of state and federal
exemptions to what they may levy to satisfy a debt, and
acknowledged that the bill might affect a lending institution's
willingness to grant a particular loan.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that passage of
HB 101 could have a detrimental effect on a lending institution
that had based its decision to grant a loan in part on the
current exemptions.
MR. BAILEY suggested that an applicability provision could be
added to the bill to address situations involving existing
[loans/contracts].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether applying the bill to
[existing contracts] might raise a constitutional problem.
MR. BAILEY said he doesn't believe that the bill as currently
written would apply retroactively to an existing contract; his
interpretation is that the bill would only apply to contracts
entered into after its effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said:
As I understand this bill, it will apply to all
attempts at execution after the effective date, and
what I'm concerned about is if there is an attempted
execution after the effective date for a contract that
was entered into ... prior to the effective date. I
think it would apply, because the execution was after
the effective date, but it would impair the contract -
[the] loan - that was entered into before the
effective date. ... I think to be sure that there's no
unconstitutional impairment of that contract, we would
need - to be absolutely certain - an applicability
section that would apply to contracts entered into
after the effective date.
MR. BAILEY indicated that [including such a provision] would be
advisable; it would clarify that the bill applies to the
contract rather than to the execution. He also indicated that
he could draft such a provision. In response to questions, he
said that the concept of HB 101 applies broadly to life
insurance policies and annuity contracts that are subject to
collection; that who pays for an insurance policy won't have an
effect on the bill's applicability; and that the exemption
offered in the bill only applies to unmatured life insurance and
annuity contracts.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the bill uses the term
"individual" rather than the term "person", which includes
organizations. He asked whether the bill, then, would only
apply to individuals, not organizations.
MR. BAILEY said that would be the case.
8:58:14 AM
LINDA HULBERT, Agent, New York Life Insurance Company, in
response to a question, offered her belief that HB 101 will help
Alaskans better plan for their future, particularly now that
many employers no longer offer or contribute to qualified
retirement plans as part of their benefit package. For people
who legitimately want to use life insurance or annuity contracts
as a "planning vehicle," either to protect their families or for
their retirement, HB 101 would provide them with an opportunity
to do so in good faith. Currently, 10 other states have a
similar provision in law, she relayed, and so she felt that it
would be a valuable planning tool for Alaskans to have as well.
She offered her belief that if someone were to use [a life
insurance or annuity contract] in a fraudulent manner in order
to avoid creditors, the courts would invade it anyway, and so
the provisions of the bill couldn't be abused by such a person.
MS. HULBERT, on the issue of "collaterally assigning annuities
and life insurance", pointed out that lending institutions are
very careful and thus will often require the collateral
assignment of a customer's life insurance or annuity. This
means that the lending institution "stands first" on the death
benefit, and so if someone who's collaterally assigned their
life insurance or annuity dies, no payout will be made [to the
beneficiaries] until the lending institution properly documents
how much is owed to it. Once that is done to the insurance
company's satisfaction, it pays the lending institution, with
the balance going to the beneficiaries. Furthermore, once any
debt is paid on a loan involving a collaterally-assigned life
insurance or annuity contract, paperwork can be completed that
will remove the collateral assignment. She surmised, therefore,
that passage of HB 101 wouldn't have a detrimental effect on
lending institutions.
MS. HULBERT, in conclusion, relayed that it was she along with
several other people who brought forth the concept of HB 101 to
the sponsor. In response to questions, she, too, explained that
qualified retirement plans are protected by federal law from
creditor claims, and explained that a person cannot waive such
protection or pledge pension money to a lending institution in
order to procure a loan.
9:07:00 AM
MR. BAILEY, in response to comments and questions, reiterated
that the bill only applies to unmatured life insurance and
annuity contracts, not to the proceeds of any such contract.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MR. BAILEY, in response to a question, reiterated that the
legislature could and probably ought to clarify, via the use of
an applicability provision, that the bill only applies to life
insurance and annuity contracts created after the bill becomes
law.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MR. BAILEY, in response to a further question, reiterated that
he could draft an applicability provision to ensure that the
bill will only apply to life insurance and annuity contracts
entered into after the bill is enacted. In response to other
questions, he again reiterated that the exemption provided by
the bill only applies to unmatured life insurance and annuity
contracts.
MS. HULBERT added that the cash value and death benefits of a
life insurance policy could be levied by creditors if the policy
holder collaterally assigns that cash value to a lending
institution.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that there is nothing in the bill that
would disturb the relationship between a borrower and a lender
to consummate a commercial transaction, and characterized the
change proposed by the bill as being very beneficial to
consumers and their families.
MS. HULBERT, in response to a question, reiterated that federal
law protects qualified retirement plans, and said that the bill
won't affect a person's ability to collaterally assign a life
insurance policy or an annuity to a lending institution.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether a reference to
proposed AS 09.38.025(a) ought to be added to page 2, line 5,
after the language "AS 09.38.015 or 09.38.017".
MR. BAILEY indicated that he would research that issue further.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 101.
9:23:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Conceptual
Amendment 1 as stated by Mr. Bailey.
MR. BAILEY stated that the language would conceptually read
something along the lines of: "The amendments to AS
09.38.025(a), as enacted in Section 1 of this bill, apply to
life insurance and annuity contracts entered into after the
effective date of this Act."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that his intention is for
Conceptual Amendment 1 to apply to the entire bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether Conceptual Amendment 1
would really accomplish what's intended or address the concerns
of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that it might not, and
suggested that the bill be held over to allow the drafter time
to formulate the appropriate language.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1,
and again asked the drafter to consider whether the language on
page 2, line 5, ought to also include a reference to proposed
AS 09.38.025(a).
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 101 [Version E] would be held over.
9:28:53 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:29 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB101 BILL ver R.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 101 |
| 02 HB101 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 101 |
| HB152 Amendment E.1.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 Bill version E.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 DOL Ltr of Support.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 152 |
| HB152-LAW-CIV-3-11-09.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 152 |
| HB2 Bill version A.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 2 |
| HB2 Demo Birth Cert.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 2 |
| 03 HB101 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 101 |
| 04 HB 101 Fiscal Note - HLC 2-18-09.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 101 |
| 05 HB101 Ltrs of SupportOpposition.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 101 |
| HB152 Sectional.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 152 |
| HB2 HSS CS version P.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 2 |
| HB2 HSS Fiscal Note.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 2 |
| HB2 ltrs of SupportOpposition.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 2 |
| HB2 Sectional.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 2 |
| HB2 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 2 |