Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/08/2003 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2003
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 83
"An Act naming the Sven Haakanson, Sr. Airport at Old Harbor."
- MOVED SB 83 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act relating to motor vehicle emissions; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 81(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 161
"An Act allowing expenses of the correctional industries program
that may be financed from the correctional industries fund to
include the salaries and benefits of state employees."
- MOVED CSHB 161(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to boating safety; repealing secs. 3, 5, 7, 9,
11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 27, and 30, ch. 28, SLA 2000; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 93(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 202
"An Act relating to false information or report."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
HOUSE BILL NO. 60
"An Act relating to construction of a legislative hall."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 174
"An Act relating to the state centralized correspondence study
program, to funding for educational programs that occur
primarily outside school facilities, and to the duties of school
boards of borough and city school districts and regional
educational attendance areas; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 83
SHORT TITLE:SVEN HAAKANSON AIRPORT AT OLD HARBOR
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS G
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/26/03 0274 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/26/03 0274 (S) TRA, STA
03/04/03 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/04/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(TRA)
03/05/03 0354 (S) TRA RPT 4DP
03/05/03 0354 (S) DP: COWDERY, OLSON,
THERRIAULT,
03/05/03 0354 (S) LINCOLN
03/05/03 0354 (S) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
03/13/03 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/13/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(STA)
03/17/03 0513 (S) STA RPT 4DP
03/17/03 0513 (S) DP: STEVENS G, HOFFMAN,
DYSON, COWDERY
03/17/03 0514 (S) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
03/17/03 0534 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/18/2003
03/18/03 0534 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/18/03 0534 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/18/03 0534 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 83
03/18/03 0535 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1
03/18/03 0539 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/18/03 0539 (S) VERSION: SB 83
03/19/03 0576 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/03 0576 (H) TRA, STA
03/19/03 0597 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): LYNN
03/31/03 0722 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): OGG
04/01/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/01/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/03/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/03/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(TRA)
04/04/03 0767 (H) TRA RPT 7DP
04/04/03 0767 (H) DP: OGG, KOOKESH, KAPSNER,
KOHRING,
04/04/03 0767 (H) FATE, HOLM, MASEK
04/04/03 0768 (H) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
04/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 102
SHORT TITLE:CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS LEGAL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CROFT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/14/03 0215 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/14/03 0215 (H) STA, JUD
02/14/03 0215 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/19/03 0257 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GATTO
03/13/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/27/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/27/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
03/28/03 0688 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ANDERSON
04/07/03 0830 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAHLSTROM, KOTT
04/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 81
SHORT TITLE:MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MEYER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/07/03 0148 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/07/03 0148 (H) TRA, STA
03/27/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(TRA)
03/31/03 0705 (H) TRA RPT 1DP 3NR
03/31/03 0705 (H) DP: HOLM; NR: FATE, KOHRING,
MASEK
03/31/03 0705 (H) FN1: ZERO(ADM)
04/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 161
SHORT TITLE:CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES PROGRAM EXPENSES
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0431 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0431 (H) STA, FIN
03/05/03 0432 (H) FN1: (COR)
03/05/03 0432 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/01/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/03/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/03/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 93
SHORT TITLE:REPEAL BOATING SAFETY SUNSET
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WEYHRAUCH
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/12/03 0186 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/12/03 0186 (H) TRA, STA
02/18/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/18/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
2/25/03> -- Meeting Canceled
02/25/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/25/03 (H) Heard & Held
02/25/03 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/27/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/01/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/01/03 (H) Moved CSHB 93(TRA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(TRA)
04/02/03 0730 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 1DP 2DNP
2NR
04/02/03 0730 (H) DP: HOLM; DNP: KOHRING,
MASEK;
04/02/03 0730 (H) NR: OGG, FATE
04/02/03 0730 (H) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
04/02/03 0750 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OGG
04/03/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/03/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR GARY STEVENS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 83.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 102.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 102.
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison
Institute for Legislative Action
National Rifle Association (NRA)
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 102.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 81.
CHARLES R. HOSACK, Deputy Director
Director's Office
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the division in
support of HB 81.
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, Staff
to Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions from the committee
during the hearing on HB 81.
TOM CHAPPLE, Acting Director
Division of Air & Water Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
CYNTHIA L. HEIL, Section Manager
Mobile Sources Section
Division of Air & Water Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions from the committee
during the hearing on HB 81.
JAMES ARMSTRONG, Coordinator
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS)
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Brought attention to an AMATS policy letter
of support for HB 81.
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question about HB 102 and brought
up a point pertaining to HB 93.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-38, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives Seaton
and Weyhrauch were present at the call to order.
Representatives Holm, Dahlstrom, Lynn, Berkowitz, and Gruenberg
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 83-SVEN HAAKANSON AIRPORT AT OLD HARBOR
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 83, "An Act naming the Sven Haakanson, Sr.
Airport at Old Harbor."
Number 0200
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that SB 83, would name the small state airport in Old
Harbor - a city and Native village [on Kodiak Island] - after
Sven Haakanson, Sr. He noted that Mr. Haakanson was the mayor
of that community for 27 years. Senator Gary Stevens said he
met Mr. Haakanson in 1970 and counted him as a friend. He was a
real mover and shaker in the Native community; was well known;
played a major role in establishing various Native corporations
and associations, including cofounder of Kodiak Area Native
Association and of Koniag, Incorporated, the regional Native
Corporation; and served on the boards of many other
organizations. Mr. Haakanson died on November 23, 2002, and was
named Elder of the Year by Koniag, Incorporated.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS told the committee that the people of Old
Harbor, "the city," and various corporations and organizations
in that community support SB 83. He stated his belief that
there has been absolutely no opposition to naming the airport
after Mr. Haakanson. Furthermore, people will be proud to have
his name on that small airport, he opined.
Number 0355
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, in response to Chair Weyhrauch, said he
believes it would be named "The Sven Haakanson, Sr. Airport."
Noting that the title of the bill reads "The Sven Haakanson, Sr.
Airport at Old Harbor", while line 5 reads "Sven Haakanson, Sr.
Airport", he at first suggested line 5 probably should read,
"named the Sven Haakanson, Sr. Airport at Old Harbor".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the intent was to include "at Old
Harbor" on the sign.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS responded that he isn't too interested in
that, which would be a long name, and that he hadn't realized
there was a difference between the title and line 5. He then
specified that the sign should say, "The Sven Haakanson, Sr.
Airport."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the airport is named already.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS said no.
Number 0529
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report SB 83 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
Number 0570
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for purposes of discussion. He
asked the sponsor if he would entertain a friendly amendment to
remove "at Old Harbor" from the title.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM withdrew his motion to move the bill.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked the sponsor what he would like to do.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS concurred with changing the title so it is
clear that the sign will say "Sven Haakanson, Sr. Airport".
Thus he suggested deleting "at Old Harbor" from line 1.
Number 0654
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report SB 83, with the foregoing
amendment, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection. There being
no objection, he indicated HCS SB 83(STA) would be reported from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
[Following the meeting, however, at the advice of Legislative
Legal and Research Services, a decision was made not to adopt
the amendment. Therefore, SB 83 was reported from the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.]
HB 102-CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS LEGAL
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act relating to concealed deadly
weapons."
Number 0759
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 102, suggested that the committee work from the proposed
committee substitute (CS), Version I, labeled 23-LS0515\I,
Luckhaupt, 4/2/03.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the original bill didn't deal
with the age requirement, whereas Version I would set the age
requirement at 21. He explained, "We really do mean to keep all
the substantive restrictions on gun ownership, except the
requirement to get the permit." He said there are 18- and 19-
year-olds currently fighting in Iraq, using firearms.
Notwithstanding that, for the purposes of the bill,
Representative Croft said he didn't want to make any changes
except getting rid of the requirement to get the concealed-carry
permit.
Number 0915
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that "the old law" said a person can
carry a concealed weapon if that person is a permittee, is on
his/her own land, or is engaged in hunting or fishing
activities. It also said a person who is a permittee and is
stopped by [a police] officer is under an affirmative obligation
to tell the officer if he/she is carrying a weapon and to allow
that officer to secure that weapon, if necessary. As a
technical matter, he pointed out that if a police officer
approaches a person who is carrying concealed on his/her own
land without a permit, that person is under no obligation to
tell the officer. Representative Croft said [the same applies
to someone who is] hunting or fishing. He continued as follows:
We have made that a general requirement of the
criminal law. So now you don't have to have a permit,
but you have the general requirement, when stopped by
an officer, to say - if you're carrying concealed -
that you are: "Hello officer. By the way, I have a
[45-caliber pistol] here under my coat."
So, in that sense, when we did not originally intend
it, it is tightening of the law somewhat; it is
putting an affirmative obligation - I think a
reasonable one - on everybody. You can carry
concealed, generally, but you have the more general
requirement now to tell an officer when he comes.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that this language is on the bottom
of page 1 and the top of page 2 [in Version I]; the added
language pertaining to the age restriction is found on page 2,
lines 20-22.
Number 1092
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated concern previously expressed by a
member regarding a list of permittees. He referred to the
bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4, where he said the
requirement to compile a list of permittees was removed and the
idea that permits or renewals are not public records was
[retained]. He explained:
If we deleted the whole section, and they decided to
keep a list, we would have technically allowed them to
distribute it, which was ... never the intent. So
right now, they can keep a list or not, as they
choose. But if they do, it's not public records under
[AS] 40.25.110.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he appreciated members' comments made
during the prior hearing on HB 102.
Number 1158
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM referred to previous discussion regarding
this requirement of informing when a person has a weapon. He
asked if it is currently in law that if [a police officer] stops
a vehicle and there is a weapon in the glove compartment, for
example, that weapon is considered a concealed weapon and [the
person who was stopped] must inform [the officer].
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered as follows:
Right now, you would be in one of two situations. If
it's sort of within your control and it's concealed
under a coat on the seat next to you [or] in the glove
compartment readily accessible to you, then, yes, it's
a concealed weapon. And one of two things: either
you have [a] permit - in which case you're under the
affirmative duty to tell them - or you don't have a
permit, in which case you're committing an illegal
act. The general duty to inform was placed on
permittees. You didn't need to on the other, because
it wasn't illegal for you to carry without the permit
anyway.
Number 1256
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to a question asked [during a
prior hearing] regarding knives. Saying he didn't see the
answer addressed, he remarked, "A sheath knife was not
permitted."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded, "And now that we have allowed
it, it is." He said it was a good question and mentioned "a
somewhat complicated and tortuous path." He explained:
Before, you had to have the hunting or fishing
exception. So on your boat you could have the sheath
knife, even concealed, but you could not, as a general
rule, walk down the street with it concealed. Now
that we have made ... the possession of a concealed
deadly weapon ... no longer criminal, that has solved
that problem.
It also led us into the idea of pipe bombs [that]
somebody mentioned in their last committee meeting.
Pipe bombs are explosives, and separately
criminalized, higher than this level. So, while
"deadly weapon" includes "explosive", "explosive" is
separately, specifically, and more clearly charged at
a higher level. Knives and pipe bombs out, in other
words, Representative [Seaton].
Number 1356
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to an exception on page 2,
line 21, regarding ordinary pocket knives.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to AS 11.61.220(a), which read in
part:
(a) A person commits the crime of misconduct
involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person
(1) knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other
than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon,
that is concealed on the person;
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the definition of a deadly weapon
excludes pocket knives, but includes big knives such as sheath
knives. He said under the old law, carrying it concealed was a
violation of the law, unless the person had a permit. He added,
"It's not even clear, ... because it was a firearms permit, that
that would get you out of trouble." With regard to the new law,
however, he said a person can carry a deadly weapon concealed,
"as long as you don't fit into some of these categories that are
in bold" such as not telling a police officer, or being in
someone's residence without asking [permission with regard to
the weapon].
Number 1454
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, line 21, and
conveyed his understanding that "defensive weapon" is defined in
AS 11.81.900(b)(19). He asked for the definition.
[Chair Weyhrauch handed Representative Gruenberg a copy of the
statute to read.]
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "Mace is what I remember from it -
that it's specifically defined."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the phrase "contacted by a peace
officer" is contained in AS 18.65.750 and would be repealed by
this bill. He said he thinks that it's fairly critical to have
a definition of "contacted".
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the language is "back in" on
page 3, lines 18-21. He explained that it was one part of
AS 18.65.750(c) that [he and his staff] thought was needed.
Number 1550
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the other issue that gives him a
great deal of concern is Section 6, which allows the use of
records for law enforcement purposes. He said the constraint
that he is concerned about has a lot to do with what's happening
at the federal level with regard to the so-called Patriot Act I
and Patriot Act II, through which the federal government is
seeking access to "inventories of weapons and associations and
such." He asked if that topic had come up during Representative
Croft's deliberations on HB 102.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered no. He said it is a concern of
his as well. Noting that what is being kept in Section 6 is the
current law, he explained:
We're saying here, the negative, that is, they're not
public records and may only be used for law
enforcement purposes. That's in the current law;
we're retaining the restriction. We didn't feel this
bill [was] the vehicle to go further into the records
issue, but we're not loosening it up.
Number 1636
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested it would be appropriate [in
the House Judiciary Standing Committee, the next committee of
referral] to put up some safeguards. He said he is leery of
letting the federal government have access to "some of the
things they want to have access to in the Patriot Acts."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Berkowitz if his concerns
regarding Section 6 relate to constraints in the Patriot Act.
Number 1656
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he has received information from
the mayor of Anchorage, "where they have a program where they
want to ... have inventories of weapons and inventories of
people who have membership in certain organizations, ...
pursuant to Patriot [Act] I." He related his understanding that
Patriot [Act] II is "far more onerous in that regard."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he would watch out for that.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representatives Berkowitz and Croft if
that could be addressed in the current committee, for review by
[the House Judiciary Standing Committee].
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he thinks it is a very
legitimate concern, but may be "a larger creature for a
different bill." He explained, "It's not just 'concealed
carries'; it's a lot of different records pertaining to weapons,
and a lot of different things that they may be concerned about."
Regarding [HB 102], he opined that it is important to maintain
the restrictions on "who can see this." [The bill states that]
permits and renewals are not public records and may only be used
for law enforcement purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that it is a legitimate point to
consider further restrictions regarding law enforcement. He
said he wants the committee to understand that "we are not
backtracking in this bill at all." Regarding strengthening the
current requirements, he said it is something that could be
looked at, but might be "biting off too big a bite for this
small bill."
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, on that point, referred to the title,
""An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons." He posited that
this certainly fits within that broad title. He added, "We're
expanding the rights of those who are carrying concealed; we
ought to, at the same time, protect those rights. And so I
would, again, suggest we do it."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, speaking from his experience as a
prosecutor, referred to a case where a young man was arrested
for carrying concealed because he had a knife in a scabbard that
was covered by a coat when he was seated. When the young man
stood up, the knife was revealed, but the officer had contacted
him when the young man was seated. He referred to [page 1,
lines 8-11], which read as follows:
(A) that is concealed on the person, and, when
contacted by a peace officer, the person fails to
(i) immediately inform the peace officer of
that possession; or
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the definition of "immediately" is
fairly critical. He suggested that when police make contact,
they should affirmatively indicate, to those they contact, "the
obligation." He likened it to Miranda [warnings].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said his concern would be that there may be an
exclusionary prohibition on authorizing evidence of a crime
because a police officer fails to immediately request
information about possession. He said the burden would be put
on the police officer.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "What's the mens rea, if you
don't immediately inform? What's the culpable mental state?"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said it is certainly a question of fact.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said:
There's no intent to not inform the officer; it's not
reckless, because you don't know about it. You're not
negligent, because you don't know about it. So, it
almost seems that you've evolved into a situation
where ... there's no mental state required at all.
And that runs counter to most components of the
criminal code.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to a question by Representative
Croft, said the committee tries to get a sense of "where the
policy is going to be shaped outside the committee room."
Number 1959
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding mens rea or mental intent,
referred to the word "knowingly" on [page 1], line 6, which
modifies the word "possesses". He commented, "They may know
that they possess it, and that's the knowledge that seems to be
required here." He deduced that Representative Berkowitz was
speaking in regard to [when the person] knowingly fails to
immediately inform the peace officer. He stated his assumption
that the person would have to know that the other person is a
peace officer. He said it wouldn't apply if the person were a
plain-clothes officer. He referred to Section 4, beginning on
page 3, line 18, which read as follows:
*Sec.4. AS 11.61.220 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(j) In (a)(1) of this section, "contacted
by a peace officer" means stopped, detained,
questioned, or addressed in person by the
peace officer for an official purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that it is the intent [of the
sponsor] that the person would have to know that the person was
a peace officer.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representatives Croft and
Berkowitz if it would make them feel better if [the language was
changed] to read "a known peace officer", for example.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern about imposing an
affirmative duty on people to inform the police of anything. He
explained, "If people are unaware of that affirmative duty, it
seems to me problematic to try to prosecute them for a violation
of that section."
Number 2107
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested adding something like "and
asked if they had a weapon" to Section 4.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he isn't comfortable putting the
affirmative duty on the police officer without understanding
more about it. He said he'd like to get [the bill] to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee for just this sort of discussion.
Number 2141
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed CS, Version
23-LS0515\I, Luckhaupt, 4/2/03, as a work draft. There being no
objection, Version I was before the committee.
Number 2163
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), thanked the sponsor for
addressing the concern of [ANDVSA] regarding people who are
carrying concealed and the need, when entering a residence, to
identify that they are carrying a concealed weapon. Announcing
that today is the six-month anniversary of her father's death,
she said he'd taught her that it is important to pay attention
to the detail; people add to or subtract from their character by
how they pay attention to that detail and what they [do]. She
continued:
There were some things that were said at the last
committee, or things that were written down, that I
think are not accurate and need correcting. I'm not
hysterical. I wasn't [hysterical] in any of the
committee meetings whenever I testified about
concealed weapons. I never screamed that blood was
going to run in the street. As you can probably tell,
I don't make my money by training people how to use
guns. And I think that training is important.
They had a qualifier in the NRA's testimony the past
time about saying that while they were using
statistics that said crime rates went down, they
weren't saying that that was the correlation,
necessarily, between the concealed weapons permitting
process.
MS. HUGONIN referred to implications at a previous hearing that
if a state enacts concealed carry laws, its [crime rates] will
go down. She said:
Last year, we did not testify on Senate Bill 242 until
they made a statement that sexual assault went down.
And as you have been becoming more familiar with this
problem in our state, you know that we rank the top
per capita in the nation in sexual assault, and we
have for the last several years. Having concealed
permits in our state has not affected that statistic.
Number 2283
MS. HUGONIN emphasized that this isn't necessarily about the
right to bear arms, but about whether they should be concealed.
Just as people have the right to self-defense, she said they
should have the right to refuse to be in the presence of a
weapon that might pose a danger. She told members:
When a person carries concealed, that takes away my
right to make a choice about whether or not I want to
be in the presence of that weapon. So, as we're
thinking through the issue, I would hope that we would
think of other elements besides the right to bear
arms. I think it's different from that. I think it's
a balancing act about our rights and how we decide to
protect ourselves and to be safe.
MS. HUGONIN, in response to Representative Berkowitz's concern
regarding [people] being informed of their responsibility,
stated the following:
Originally, when we had enacted the concealed
permitting process, when you went to get your permit
you were given a packet of information so that you had
the opportunity to know what the statutes and the
regulations were. So you did have the opportunity to
say, "Oh, if I see a peace officer, this is what I'm
supposed to do," or, "These are the places I'm not
allowed to carry" - so that you had the opportunity to
try and keep yourself out of that trouble, to be
informed about where you could and couldn't carry the
weapon.
So I would hope that we're open to have dialogue and
discussion on both sides. That language doesn't have
to be inflammatory. ... Scare tactics don't have to be
used when you're trying to talk about this issue.
Number 2418
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison, Institute for Legislative
Action, National Rifle Association (NRA), mentioned graphs he'd
showed the committee [at a previous hearing, showing crime
rates]. Noting that 1995 was the year the Alaska concealed
weapon permit law took effect, he said crime did "fall off
precipitously, immediately following." He continued:
I did point out that I can't guarantee that that was
as a direct result of the implementation of the
concealed weapon permit law, but I did want to make
the point that the implementation of that law right
after the (indisc.). And there was tremendously
inflammatory language, maybe not necessarily by the
previous speaker, [but] back in the mid-nineties, ...
by many others. And it was specifically mentioned
that there ... were going to be shootouts in Anchorage
intersections. It was quite amazing. And none of
that took place. There have been studies that have
shown that when ... law-abiding citizens are able to
provide a means of self-protection that crime does
drop.
So, for whatever the reason -- I'm sure some component
of it is the fact that criminals are now more
concerned, but there are a lot of other things, too,
that may impact the rate of crime in a particular
state. So, again, I believe that this law is the
ultimate streamlining; it takes away the need for law-
abiding citizens to get permission to provide a means
of self-protection. I believe that it will not have a
negative impact on crime.
To make one last point on the training: there are
many, many states that issue concealed weapon permits,
and the breadth of laws ... from absolutely no
training to fairly significant training is out there.
And the empirical evidence in every one of those
states is the same: ... there are not problems
generally caused by concealed weapon permit holders,
training-related or otherwise.
MR. JUDY stated the NRA's support of HB 102 as amended.
Number 2569
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony. He told Representative
Croft he thinks the title should be tightened, and asked him to
work with the committee regarding the questions raised on
Sections 4 and 6.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Croft to consider
the following:
In Section 5, which, I think, was the basis of this
legislation, if we could have a section that does
impose on people from other jurisdictions -- ... this
is a presumption that they're aware of Alaska statutes
and restrictions. ... That might be, ... just for
evidentiary purposes, ... very helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said any further questions he himself
might have, he could work on in the House Judiciary Standing
Committee. [HB 102 was held over.]
HB 81-MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION
Number 2677
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 81, "An Act relating to motor vehicle emissions;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 2690
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 81 would improve enforcement of the I/M
[Inspection & Maintenance] program, provide consistency between
the various departments that oversee the I/M program, and
provide some relief to the current extraneous testing
requirements. He said it is a technical bill regarding a
program that exists only in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that one proposal is to change the
fine from $200 to $500. He said the average repair cost to
bring a car into compliance is approximately $250 to $2,000;
hence there is currently an economic incentive not to take the
I/M exam because the fine is less than the cost of the repairs.
If federal standards for clean air aren't met in Anchorage and
Fairbanks, however, it jeopardizes federal funds that both
cities receive.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that in the past some alternative
fuels were exempt. Although natural gas is a clean-burning
fuel, he said it has been found that if a car is not maintained,
even clean-burning fuels can also pollute the air. Therefore,
those cars will also now be required to get I/M-tested.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said the legislation also addresses several
loopholes in the current program. For example, before a
vehicle's registration can be renewed, a car must have a
current, valid inspection. He explained, "The problem arose
when an inspection would expire, but the registration was still
current." He noted that [HB 81] would provide that a motor
vehicle registration cannot extend beyond the expiration of any
emissions certificate.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER told the committee that the bill would also
clarify what emission programs must be met when ownership is
transferred. He stated, "It used to be [that] a car that was
1987 or older would have to be I/M-inspected every 12 months.
Now, they're changing that to all cars ... every two years." He
said [the legislation] also contains a consumer protection
clause because someone who buys a car with no decal in the
window will know that car hasn't been inspected.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that currently the Department of
Administration (DOA) solely handles enforcement. The
legislation would extend enforcement to the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and to "the various
municipalities such as Anchorage and Fairbanks."
Number 2881
CHARLES R. HOSACK, Deputy Director, Director's Office, Division
of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, testified on
behalf of the division in support of HB 81. He reiterated
Representative Meyer's previous statement that the bill would
provide consistency and would remove some of the confusing
aspects of the program "for both ourselves and our customers."
He opined that it would take out unnecessary inspections without
impacting the air quality program.
Number 2916
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to the zero fiscal note, asked
if there would be no cost in enforcing the program.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he'd thought there should actually be
a positive fiscal note; there should be more money coming in to
the state because of the increased fines. He added that he
didn't think the difference would be that great.
Number 2950
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it seems a person who operates a
motor vehicle in violation of the emissions requirement and thus
violates Section 5 would necessarily also violate Section 8,
although the same isn't true in reverse. He also mentioned
potential constitutional problems.
TAPE 03-38, SIDE B
Number 2989
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the sponsor to confirm that his
intent is not for somebody to be "double punished" for violating
both of these [sections].
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER replied, "That's correct."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he'd like that clear on the
record. Second, he said there are many poor people in his
district and many older cars, some of which probably violate
[the proposed legislation]. He said he knows the fine is being
raised for a purpose; however, it is a lot of money to a poor
person who has an older car. He said he'd like the court to
have some discretion in the matter. He suggested that both
Sections 5 and 8 include the words "not to exceed" before
"$500".
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER deferred comment to his staff.
Number 2920
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska
State Legislature, told Representative Gruenberg that she
understands his concern. She noted that a question was raised
during a House Transportation Standing Committee hearing
regarding the collection of fines. She said she was able to
speak with someone "through the Municipality of Anchorage
vehicle Inspection & Maintenance program," regarding how issuing
citations, violations, and the collection of fines are dealt
with on the municipal level. She said she was told that the
court actually does have some jurisdiction in determining the
fine for each citation. She mentioned information that she'd
distributed "to the individual offices" which indicated that in
some cases, when the court sees that a person has brought a car
into compliance with the program, it can either waive the fees
or significantly reduce them.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "Then you would have no
objection, I assume, to putting that language in so that even a
judge would understand what you said."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded, "No objection."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would offer that amendment at
the appropriate time. In response to a request by Chair
Weyhrauch, he reiterated that [the amendment would address a
concern regarding] both Sections 8 and 5.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there is no mens rea
required. He clarified, "You don't have ... to do this
knowingly or anything. If you do it, regardless of your mental
state, you're guilty. Is that correct?"
[Representative Meyer nodded in agreement.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that's how it reads in Section 8.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added, "And also in Section 5. You
don't have to know if you are in violation of the emission
requirement. If you're behind the wheel and the thing is
violating it, you're guilty." He said he doesn't think there is
a constitutional problem with that, but wants it on the record
that "it's strict liability in the criminal sense." He asked if
that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said yes. He added that he thinks that's
why there is some flexibility in the fine.
Number 2775
TOM CHAPPLE, Acting Director, Division of Air & Water Quality,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), testified in
support of HB 81. He mentioned staff-level efforts over the
years in the Municipality of Anchorage and in Fairbanks to look
at how to improve the program "both from the consumer end [and]
the vehicle-motor end," as well as how to make the program
effective and efficient. Mr. Chapple concluded as follows:
The vehicle Inspection & Maintenance is one of our key
programs to try [to] achieve air quality in Anchorage,
and it's been successful. In Anchorage, specifically,
we have not violated the public health standard for
six winters in a row, and that is in large part due to
this program. It is time to make some improvements,
and I think the things in this bill can help the
owners of vehicles, as well as the staff at the local
level.
Number 2688
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Mr. Chapple shared his own
understanding that enforcement would involve meter maids
checking for the I/M decals.
MR. CHAPPLE answered that he doesn't believe it would work that
way. He deferred further response to his available staff.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he also thinks meter maids would do
the enforcement. He explained that currently DOA is [in charge
of enforcement]; however, [the legislation would also include]
the involvement of DEC and the various municipalities.
NUMBER 2620
MS. CUNNINGHAM commented as follows:
I believe ... that, currently, the Division of Motor
Vehicles has the authority to enforce registration,
and, of course, you can't register your vehicle unless
you have a current I/M. DEC can enforce the emissions
program, but there seems to be a pretty vague area in
between, as far as the registration and the emissions
programs.
MS. CUNNINGHAM said Cindy Heil could address the enforcement
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON restated his concern as follows:
We've changed this from having to have a certificate,
which is something that doesn't show up on the outside
of the car, to it's now a $500 violation if you fail
to display an emission decal in your window. And we
are now giving the authority to the municipality,
which I would presume -- just like the ... tickets
that were given for registration, when that was given
to the municipality. ... I would presume that that
would be the structure, and I'm just wondering whether
... somebody's going to address whether that's the
probable mechanism for enforcement of this.
Number 2553
CYNTHIA L. HEIL, Section Manager, Mobile Sources Section,
Division of Air & Water Quality, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), noted that Sections 5, 7, and 8 in the bill
deal with enforcement. She specified two types of enforcement:
that which deals with the display of [the decal] on the
windshield, and that which deals with falsification. In
Anchorage, she said, a number of people register their vehicles
in the Matanuska-Susitna area to avoid the I/M requirement. Ms.
Heil said, "You can't go by just what's on the windshield." She
continued as follows:
That kind of enforcement you have to verify, and prove
that those vehicles are falsely registered. What
happens is, you find a vehicle that doesn't have an
I/M, you start through your normal ... processes, and
then you also find if they're falsely registered.
Well, currently, in our notices of violation, we are
not allowed, because we don't have statutory
authority, to tell, as a remedy, for those people to
not only get an I/M, but then to properly register
their vehicle. That has to go through the Department
of Administration, with the Division of Motor
Vehicles. It would be much more efficient if the
department and municipalities who do enforcement could
"notice" people that not only do their cars do not
have an I/M, but they also need to register their
vehicles properly. That is one type of enforcement
that we deal with.
That other is the decals. But with Anchorage,
especially, you can't just write tickets for not
having a sticker on your windshield, because people
come in here to shop. People come in here to visit.
And we must be very careful about how we do
enforcement, because those people are legal to be in
Anchorage without an I/M.
And so, the other point about why these fines are
coming up is that we are overwhelmed right now with
enforcement. I mean, we're not trying to go out and
pad our budgets. Anybody who has the opportunity to
comply, as well, with the municipality -- and these
are just trying to help take away the numbers that
we're having to deal with at this point in time.
Number 2412
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 4, [beginning on] line
30, which read as follows:
(f) A person who fails to display an emissions
inspection decal as required by law
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "That's the $500." He added, "But
it's not the 'fails to display', but the 'as required by law',
is where this dual requirement comes into effect. Is that
correct? Because you're not required to display ... the sticker
unless you're an Anchorage resident?"
MS. HEIL said that's correct. Regulations are very specific
regarding who is and isn't required to have a decal. She said
Section 8 was modified specifically to give the department the
ability to either deal with violations regarding the sticker -
for example, "people are taking them back off" - or to use other
enforcement mechanisms for people who are egregious in their
violations.
Number 2341
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled from his previous time [in
legislature] what a problem it is has been when people register
their cars in the Matanuska-Susitna area to fraudulently evade
this law. He asked Ms. Heil whether it is still a problem.
MS. HEIL responded, "That's very much the case."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is a law which prohibits
somebody from doing that.
MS. HEIL answered as follows:
The statutes and regulations, under the motor vehicle
rules, under the Department of Administration, the
Division of Motor Vehicles, [state] very clearly that
... you're supposed to register your vehicle and how
you ... do it properly. But they don't have their own
enforcement arm. They have to rely on ... the police
or the troopers, or through ... the proper
administrative procedures. We would overwhelm the
Division of Motor Vehicles if we were to try to have
them process all the revocations ... through their
regulations and statutes.
What we're attempting in Section 7 is to allow the
department ... and the municipalities to at least
notice, in our notices of the violations, that the
remedy the people need to make is to properly
register. At this point in time, we are not allowed,
during the enforcement of false registration, to ask
them, as a remedy, to get their vehicles properly
registered. And so now what we're seeing is, people
getting their I/Ms and then, in two years, we're
having to go back out and do enforcement on them to
get their I/Ms again, because they're not getting
their vehicles properly registered where they
[should].
Number 2240
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is a statute that makes
it a crime or provides a penalty for people who knowingly and
intentionally register their cars elsewhere to evade the local
emission requirement law.
MS. HEIL answered yes. She suggested that Mr. Hosack could
provide more specific information.
Number 2155
JAMES ARMSTRONG, Coordinator, Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions (AMATS) Program, Municipality of
Anchorage, referred to a letter from AMATS dated March 20, 2003,
included in the committee packet, which he said is a policy
letter of endorsement for HB 81. He commended Representative
Meyer, his staff, and DEC for converting a very technical piece
of legislation into a "user-friendly, readable sponsor statement
and understandable bill."
Number 2172
MR. HOSACK, regarding Representative Gruenberg's previous
question, said the section of law is in Title 28. Referring to
AS 28.10.491, he mentioned paragraph (9), which read as follows:
(9) makes a false statement or otherwise conceals
or withholds a material fact in an application for
registration or certificate of title or falsely
affirms with respect to a matter required to be sworn
to, affirmed, or furnished under this chapter or
regulations adopted under this chapter; except that a
person who with criminal negligence as defined in AS
11.81.900, falsely certifies to the department the
existence of a motor vehicle liability insurance
policy under AS 28.10.021(a)(2), is guilty of a class
A misdemeanor.
MR. HOSACK said that violation could be "up to a felony" and
would apply in this case. He clarified, "If you're making an
application for registration and ... your primary residence is
in Anchorage, say, and you list the Mat-Su Valley, it would come
under this."
Number 2113
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered [Amendment 1], a handwritten
amendment that read as follows [original punctuation provided
but some formatting changed]:
p 4, line 6, after "fined" add
"an amount not to exceed"
p 5, line 2, after "fined" add
"an amount not to exceed"
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said [Amendment 1] would be fine.
Number 2064
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting
Amendment 1. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2034
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered [Amendment 2] to the title as follows:
Page 1, line 1, after "emissions"
Insert ", emission inspection decals, and fines"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting
Amendment 2. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2005
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM referred to a letter from the Fairbanks
North Star Borough I/M manager regarding page 3, line 11, which
read:
(ii) has a certificate of inspection, but
the certificate shows that the vehicle is not in
compliance with program requirements
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that the author of the letter had
indicated that wasn't necessary because "we could transfer a
noncomplying vehicle anyway."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he hadn't read the letter and deferred
to his staff.
MS. CUNNINGHAM said she'd spoken with Ms. Heil regarding the
previously stated language. She deferred to Ms. Heil.
MS. HEIL said it's a clarification, but not necessarily needed.
Number 1926
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said if [the language] makes the bill more
understandable, then it's fine to keep it in.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded that the language could be left
in for purposes of clarification, unless the committee
considered that a problem.
Number 1888
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 81, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection,
CSHB 81(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 161-CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES PROGRAM EXPENSES
Number 1875
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 161, "An Act allowing expenses of the
correctional industries program that may be financed from the
correctional industries fund to include the salaries and
benefits of state employees."
Number 1850
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt as work drafts the proposed
committee substitute (CS), Version D, labeled 23-GH1104\D,
Luckhaupt, 4/2/03, and the accompanying letter of intent. The
letter of intent read [original punctuation provided]:
The Legislature supports using the Correctional
Industries Fund to pay for salaries and benefits of
employees of the Correctional Industries Program. The
legislature supports the program and has supported
past funding by using general fund dollars. In the
event that the fund is unable to pay for the salary
and benefit costs associated with the employees of the
program, then the legislature will make every attempt
to find alternative funding or return to funding
through general funds.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that without objection, Version D and
the letter of intent were before the committee.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested amending the letter of intent to
capitalize "program" and "fund" [throughout].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if ["program" in the title of the
bill] also should be capitalized.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH answered, "In the title, it's different because
it's referred to consistently as the 'program' - small caps - in
the bill."
[The foregoing amendment to the letter of intent was treated as
adopted.]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSHB 161 [Version 23-
GH1104\D, Luckhaupt, 4/2/03], along with the amended letter of
intent, out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection,
CSHB 161(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 93-REPEAL BOATING SAFETY SUNSET
Number 1776
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to boating safety; repealing
secs. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 27, and 30, ch.
28, SLA 2000; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was CSHB 93(TRA).]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, sponsor, reminded members that the bill had
been held pending receipt of a fiscal note.
Number 1690
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report [CSHB 93(TRA)] out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 93(TRA) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
Number 1583
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Alaska
State Legislature, noted that it is the committee substitute
(CS) from the House Transportation Standing Committee, although
she recalled that Representative Gruenberg had brought up the
notion of leaving in one of the sunset provisions.
[Representative Gruenberg moved to rescind his motion to report
CSHB 93(TRA) out of committee, but then decided not to rescind
it. Therefore, CSHB 93(TRA) was reported from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.]
The committee took an at-ease from 9:17 a.m. to 9:47 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1495
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:48 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|