Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/24/1999 03:25 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS
April 24, 1999
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative John Coghill, Vice Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Eric Croft
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Richard Foster
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 101(FIN) am
"An Act relating to disasters and to the disaster relief fund."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 101(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 101
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF DISASTER
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/11/99 476 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/11/99 476 (S) FIN
3/15/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/15/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/15/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/18/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/18/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/22/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/22/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/22/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/24/99 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/24/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/29/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/29/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
3/31/99 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/31/99 (S) MOVED CS(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/01/99 768 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP NEW TITLE
4/01/99 768 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, GREEN,
4/01/99 768 (S) PETE KELLY, LEMAN, WILKEN, DONLEY
4/06/99 (S) RLS AT 3:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/06/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/07/99 804 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DEC, DMVA)
4/08/99 821 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 4/8/99
4/08/99 825 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/08/99 825 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/08/99 825 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/08/99 825 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
4/08/99 826 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 101(FIN) AM
4/08/99 826 (S) FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N9 A1
4/08/99 826 (S) MACKIE NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/09/99 853 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
4/09/99 853 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2
UNAN CONSENT
4/09/99 853 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED Y13 N6 E1
4/09/99 855 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
4/09/99 856 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N4 E1
4/09/99 856 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/12/99 723 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/12/99 723 (H) MLV, FIN
4/20/99 (H) MLV AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/20/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD SUBCMTE APPOINTED
4/24/99 (H) MLV AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding proposed CS for
SB 101.
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 500
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4730
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed CS for SB 101.
DARWIN PETERSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Senator John Torgerson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2138
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 101 on behalf of
Senator Torgerson, Co-Chair, Senate Finance
Committee (sponsor of SB 101).
JOHN ALCANTRA, Emergency Management Coordinator
Kenai Peninsula Borough
144 North Binkley Street
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4441
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 101.
DAVID LIEBERSBACH, Director
Division of Emergency Services
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
P.O. Box 5750
Fort Richardson, Alaska 99505-5750
Telephone: (907) 428-7000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 101; stated that he had no
problems with the proposed CS.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Special Committee on Military
and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Murkowski,
Coghill, James, Phillips, Cissna and Croft.
SB 101 - DEFINITION OF DISASTER
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the committee would hear CS for
Senate Bill No. (FIN) am, "An Act relating to disasters and to the
disaster relief fund." [The final Senate version had been heard on
April 20, and a subcommittee chaired by Representative Croft had
met. The committee had just received, by fax, a new proposed
committee substitute (CS), version 1-LS0625\W, Utermohle, 4/24/99.]
Number 0085
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT called to order the meeting of the
subcommittee, noting that members Representatives Phillips and
Murkowski were present. He made a motion to refer the proposed CS,
Version W, to the full committee for consideration. Noting that
there was no objection, he then adjourned the subcommittee meeting.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Representative Croft to explain Version W.
Number 0163
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT told members that discussion with a number of
different people had resulted in a couple of points of general
agreement and a couple of points that still may be policy matters
to discuss. First, there was general agreement that under one-half
million dollars, and probably even under $1 million, there wasn't
much concern of abuse by the governor. They had settled on needing
legislature approval for amounts over $1 million.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that this applies mainly to the
interim. When the legislature is in session it is easy to get
approval or non-approval. Furthermore, because it costs just short
of $1 million to hold a special session, it doesn't make sense to
call one to approve an $800,000 expenditure. The more they had
worked it, he said, the more it seemed appropriate to have general
authority to spend $1 million and then, above that, to require
consultation with the legislature.
Number 0287
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT read from page 2, lines 13 through 15, which
stated: "If the disaster described in the governor's proclamation
of a condition of disaster emergency is a fire, the governor may
expend state funds as necessary to save lives or protect property
and public health and safety." He reported general agreement that
there is no need to talk to the legislature before stopping a fire,
and some comfort with blanket authority to do that. However,
dealing with the consequences of a fire was a slightly different
matter. The bill had read, "or cure the effects of it", which
would be helping people recover, for example, giving them food or
loans for their houses, he noted.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT specified that for amounts under $1 million,
there would be broad authority. Over $1 million, if the
legislature is in session, its approval would be required, as set
out on page 2. If the legislature is not in session, and if there
is a federally declared disaster, that is enough to provide a
comfort level that it is appropriate, and those cases happen fairly
rarely. However, if something else happens in the interim, the
legislature must be consulted, as delineated on page 2, at the
bottom, and page 3. There is either a special session or agreement
by the presiding officers that there is no need for a special
session.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned discussion in the subcommittee about
whether the presiding officers would need to poll the entire
membership, or even a majority of the membership. He pointed out
that the committee had heard testimony that a polling requirement
can be problematic in a disaster. Although Version W says just
that the presiding officers are to be asked, he had requested that
George Utermohle draft an amendment regarding polling, as a point
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT next referred to page 3, lines 5 - 13. He
explained that the prior law had required the governor to provide
a financing plan, but hadn't specified what that should include. In
some disasters, the governor may have provided a sketchy memorandum
just saying it would be paid for. Therefore, the subcommittee had
defined "financing plan" using as a guide a memorandum to the
governor from the House Finance Committee, dated November 24, 1998
[copy provided to members].
Number 0545
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that the memorandum was regarding
Bristol Bay.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT reported that specific types of information
requested in that memorandum had been incorporated into Version W.
A financing plan should now describe the amount of money, by fund
source, including the amount of state match for federal funds - an
issue in the past - that the governor proposes to use to cover the
disaster, the estimated total expenditures, and the estimated time
frame necessary. He suggested this balances the need for detail
with the desire to not burden the governor with too much detail.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that they hadn't used the Senate's full
recommendation on the definition. The current statute says,
"disasters, including these types of things", whereas the Senate's
wording was, "only these types of things". Concerns about the
ability to list all disasters had been discussed at the previous
committee hearing, and the subcommittee had reinserted, on page 4,
line 2, "an event such as storm, high water, wind-driven water,
tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide,
mudslide, avalanche, snowstorm, prolonged extreme cold, drought".
Number 0650
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT told members that the first of two major
policy-level choices for this committee is what mechanism for
legislative approval there should be. For example, the presiding
officers could be asked, as in Version W, or legislators could be
polled, or use of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LB&A)
could be required. The second major question is whether to try to
define every type of disaster that will come up.
Number 0749
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt as a work draft
version 1-LS0625\W, Utermohle, 4/24/99. There being no objection,
Version W was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS referred members to page 4, lines 2 - 4.
She explained that many events could occur in the future that no
one even considers now, because of technological advances, for
example. The phrase "an event such as" leaves it open.
Number 0816
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether agricultural disasters are
defined separately in Title 3, or whether something needs to be
inserted. She noted that the bill removes blight and infestation.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Representative Croft whether those are
contained in the economic disaster provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that deleting an example isn't as
catastrophic as deleting an item from an exclusive list.
Number 0862
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned the recent potato late blight in the
Matanuska-Susitna area. She noted that because of the timing,
those folks were able to recover a lot. However, it would have
been a disaster if it had stopped the crops altogether.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT read from page 3, beginning at line 30, which
stated: "(2) 'disaster' means the occurrence or imminent threat of
widespread [OR] severe damage, injury, loss of life or property, or
shortage of food, water, or fuel resulting from". He noted that
"such as" is similar to the "including" in the current statute. He
suggested that even with the specific word omitted, a good argument
could be made that it could be included.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that if there were a case of "mad
cow disease," for example, all cattle in Alaska would have to be
killed.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI agreed that there is no way to predict all the
types of disasters that ultimately may occur.
Number 0949
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that agriculture is affected by
the same climate changes that affect fisheries. She asked: If
there is a situation where people stand to lose their lives because
of lack of food, is not one the same as the other?
CHAIR MURKOWSKI responded that if the governor issued a
proclamation of disaster, and if the financing plan stated that it
would be in excess of $1 million, it would go into the approval
process. She suggested that is where the checks would be, if there
was disagreement.
Number 1025
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to a bill she is sponsoring for the
Division of Agriculture; that bill considers it an economic
disaster if there is a weather failure three years in a row. She
said the agricultural community feels they must plan to sometimes
have bad crops, but three years in a row would be more disastrous.
Number 1067
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that what is essentially left off
the list are "weather condition", air contamination, blight and
infestation. He suggested that if something fits the general
category, the omission doesn't hurt. He stated, "I understand why,
... with the Western Alaska fishery disaster, that weather
condition might be taken out for some of the more definitive listed
elements. I'm not sure whether blight and infestation should be
taken out. ... Most of the others that were on the list before,
even in the Senate draft, were there."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Representative James' three-year
criteria. He pointed out that this is really an interim authority
to spend under $1 million, because over $1 million, the governor
would still have to ask. If the governor approved less than $1
million on any of these, the legislature could address it once back
in session, he added.
Number 1149
CHAIR MURKOWSKI informed members that George Utermohle, the
drafter, was on-line to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Utermohle if agricultural disasters
are defined separately in Title 3 or would be included in the
language in Version W.
Number 1198
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, testified via teleconference
from his office in Juneau. He said there is nothing specific in
the language of this bill dealing with an agricultural disaster or
crop failure. However, some events here might be classified as, or
related to, an agricultural disaster, such as some of the weather
conditions described, including drought or flood. An epidemic
might also be related to an agricultural disaster.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that the burning of Mount McKinley
Meats was certainly a disaster for people who had their animals
there or who needed to take their animals there. She believes that
was handled fairly well, and because Mount McKinley Meats is owned
by the state, the state had to respond anyway. She noted that if
it had been a private entity, there might have been some insurance
money to take care of it.
Number 1253
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested discussing whether the $1 million
limit is enough. For example, if immediate action were needed and
a guard unit had to be sent to a disaster area, he wondered whether
this might throttle the governor's ability to respond properly.
Number 1295
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she doesn't believe so. If there were
a federally declared disaster, that is one provision. In addition,
the House and Senate leadership could clarify that they don't need
a special session for the governor to address a disaster, which
could happen almost instantaneously.
Number 1319
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested that Carol Carroll could provide
information. He said as far as he can tell, this was a 1977
statute, and the $1/2 million and $1 million were put in then.
Number 1352
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA), indicated that
because the DMVA would have the mechanism to go to the leadership
to get almost instantaneous approval to go above the $1 million,
she believes they would be comfortable with that. She explained
that they start to be uncomfortable when, in contrast, there is a
list of what must be done before going above that amount. She
stated, "Like Mr. Liebersbach had said, prior, he could pick up the
phone in a real bad disaster, and he could have obligated $2 or $3
million in a matter of minutes." Ms. Carroll concluded that
because it is the way it is now, which is how it has been working
in the past, she doesn't know how the DMVA would have a problem
with it.
Number 1402
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that as far as her history with
the state, emergencies and disasters, this mechanism has worked.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to Section 3(B), which discusses the
convening of the legislature or agreement by the presiding
officers. She asked what that time frame is.
MS. CARROLL responded that there used to be a five-day turnaround
time, to her knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked whether that is for response. She
stated that when the governor sends the letter to the leadership of
the House and Senate, regarding whether they will call a special
session, they must act within a specific period of time. She asked
Mr. Utermohle whether that is included somewhere else.
Number 1485
MR. UTERMOHLE answered that there are provisions in the
constitution relating to the calling of a special session.
MS. CARROLL asked for confirmation that the governor has 15 days to
convene a special session.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS affirmed that.
MR. UTERMOHLE said there are two provisions in the constitution.
One has a time limit, and one is a more of an emergency nature,
without a time limit.
Number 1509
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether, in any draft of this bill that Mr.
Utermohle has worked on, there were provisions specifying a
five-day period in which to respond. She further asked whether
that has been discussed.
MR. UTERMOHLE replied that it hasn't been an issue in prior
discussions regarding the draft, to his knowledge.
Number 1529
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that AS 26.23.020 says a proclamation of
disaster emergency may not remain in effect longer than 30 days.
He asked whether that provision remains in effect, noting that in
Section 1 of the bill, page 1, line 13, "law" is added and "a
concurrent resolution" is deleted.
MS. CARROLL affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT then stated, "It can't last more than 30 days
unless we approve it by law." He said he believes that change is
because constitutionally they never could do it by concurrent
resolution, and it should have said "law" to begin with.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she understood Representative Cissna's
concern, however, to be about time parameters within which the
leadership needs to get back to the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS responded that the time frame is in the
letter to the leadership.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether that changes, depending on the
disaster.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said no, she doesn't believe so.
Number 1580
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked who drafts the letter, and whether there
is a proposed draft of a letter somewhere.
MS. CARROLL explained that in current law, AS 26.23.025, the
governor sends a letter to the leadership, along with a financing
plan that states how much the disaster is estimated to cost. The
letter asks the leadership if the governor should convene a special
session within five days. The presiding officers answer back
within those five days and say "yea" or "nay." To her belief, that
is not included in AS 26.23.025 in Version W.
Number 1641
MR. UTERMOHLE paraphrased from the current statute, AS
26.23.025(c), which read in part: "When the governor declares a
condition of disaster emergency while the legislature is not in
session, ... the governor shall (1) convene a special session of
the legislature ... within five days unless the presiding officers
... agree that a special session should not be convened and so
advise the governor in writing".
Number 1690
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Peterson, as the sponsor's
representative, why that wasn't included by the Senate.
DARWIN PETERSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator
John Torgerson, Alaska State Legislature, said it was never
discussed in committee and may be an oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS responded that she believes it should be
added back into the statute.
Number 1719
MR. UTERMOHLE suggested it is probably appropriate to put it in AS
26.23.020(j).
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether the old statute essentially said
the governor shall call a special session within five days, unless
the leadership has informed the governor it is not necessary. He
suggested that a time limit, perhaps five days, is appropriate, as
an irresponsible leadership conceivably could do nothing with the
request, which would put everything in limbo. He asked, "Should
the response be, 'The special session is called ... unless we tell
you otherwise you've got to do it?"
[There were affirmative responses by unidentified members.]
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it seems costly but probably the ultimate
thing that should happen. He asked Mr. Utermohle whether he can
work that "five-day or else the governor shall call a special
session" into AS 26.23.020.
Number 1778
MR. UTERMOHLE affirmed that, adding that he'd like to see it worked
into the bill. He said he suspects that he would add it on the
bottom of page 2, the last four lines.
Number 1810
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt a conceptual
amendment, to add the five-day provision language in existing law
to the language at the bottom of page 2.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that it would be subsection (j).
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether there was any objection. There being
none, the conceptual amendment was adopted. She then asked whether
Ms. Carroll wished to comment on Version W.
Number 1842
MS. CARROLL acknowledged that the committee had worked to alleviate
some of the DMVA's concerns, which she believes have been mostly
taken care of, from her perspective. However, she didn't know
whether Dave Liebersbach had seen Version W.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether Mr. Liebersbach was able to receive
a fax, then had a copy of Version W faxed to him. She asked the
same of Mr. Alcantra.
Number 1954
JOHN ALCANTRA, Emergency Management Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula
Borough, responded via teleconference from Anchorage, asking that
a copy of Version W be faxed to his office in Soldotna for review
Monday. Although he hadn't seen Version W, from the comments he
believes the bill continues to improve. Some issues had been
addressed, such as the raising of the cap to the $1 million level,
as well as discussion of the necessity of special sessions for
particular dollar amounts. He pointed out that most disasters
occur when the legislature isn't in session. For example, the
summer months are prone to fires, such as at Big Lake, and floods
are likely to happen in the autumn.
MR. ALCANTRA said he believes this still rather hamstrings the
administration. As the chief of staff for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), under disaster provisions he'd had more
authority to spend money than is allowed the governor of Alaska.
He believes there are still some problems with. He would like for
the sponsor and others to meet with the state emergency response
commission, as well as the local emergency planning committee
association, which will meet in July and October in Anchorage. He
believes there is a chance to have a very good bill, instead of
just a little better bill. Although he expressed appreciation to
all who had worked on the bill, he believes it probably shouldn't
pass this legislative session. "With 25 or so days left in the
session, I think there is much more important things on the
legislature's plate than to try to rush this bill through," he
concluded.
Number 2099
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether Mr. Liebersbach wished to add
comments, but there was no response. She then asked the will of
the committee.
Number 2125
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to move the proposed CS,
version 1-LS0625\W, Utermohle, 4/24/99, as amended by the
conceptual amendment, from the committee with individual
recommendations and two zero fiscal notes.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether there was any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed the desire to hear from Mr.
Liebersbach.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that Mr. Liebersbach is the person who would
spend the money, basically.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI called a brief at-ease at 4:04 p.m., calling the
meeting almost immediately back to order.
Number 2196
MR. ALCANTRA inquired about the amendment proposed by
Representative Coghill at the previous hearing, which would have
inserted the language, "per event". He asked whether it is now per
event or per fiscal year.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI informed Mr. Alcantra that although that amendment
was not adopted at the 4/20/99 meeting, Version W provides, on page
2, lines 5 and 6, that it is $1 million per event.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed his understanding that this
follows the same pattern regarding notification of the leadership
of the House and Senate as in the current statute.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI affirmed that.
Number 2260
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether there are other times when
[Legislative Council] is contacted about events that require
legislative action.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS replied that if the legislature itself
chooses to spend money, the Legislative Council will convene.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for confirmation that all they are
asking here is for the determination of whether there should be a
special session.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS affirmed that.
Number 2287
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed, pointing out that, in addition, the
financing plan goes to the chair of the finance committee in each
house; that was in the original statute and was moved. He referred
to page 3, lines 5 - 13, then stated, "In effect, you do two
things. If you want to spend over a million dollars, you get
permission to do that, instead of a special session, from the
leadership, and you tell the finance co-chairs about your financing
plan. And we firmed up the details of that financing plan. ... The
leadership is the sort of permission to spend the money. This is
just an obligation you have to present the plan, in addition. ...
I don't think it's a trigger on your permission to spend the
money."
Number 2327
DAVID LIEBERSBACH, Director, Division of Emergency Services,
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, informed the committee
via teleconference from Anchorage that he had no problem with
Version W.
Number 2340
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether Representative Cissna was willing to
withdraw her "semi-objection"; that was affirmed. Hearing no
objection, Chair Murkowski announced that HCS CSSB 101(MLV), as
amended, was moved from the House Special Committee on Military and
Veterans' Affairs.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|