Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
03/27/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB75 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 106-UNIFORM INTER.CHILD SUPPORT;PARENTAGE
2:13:58 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act relating to the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act, including jurisdiction by tribunals of the
state, registration and proceedings related to support orders
from other state tribunals, foreign support orders, foreign
tribunals, and certain persons residing in foreign countries;
relating to determination of parentage of a child; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB
106(STA).]
2:14:01 PM
CAROL BEECHER, Deputy Director, Anchorage Central Office, Child
Support Division, Department of Revenue, advised the Alaska
Child Support Services Division is authorized under Title IV-D
of the Social Security Act and that the agency has been in
operation since 1976. The mission of the child support division
is to collect and disburse child support of which it collected
approximately $112 million in FY14, and approximately 90 percent
went directly to families for support and 10 percent reimbursed
the state and federal government for public assistance. The
case load currently is approximately 49,000 cases. She
explained that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
was drafted by the Uniform Law Commissioners and provides
universal and uniform rules for the enforcement of family
support orders between states. Alaska passed the Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act in 1996 and by 1998 all United
States jurisdictions had passed UIFSA into law. She opined the
rationale for amending UIFSA is that it was clear some revisions
were required to clarify jurisdictional and controlling order
issues. The Act was amended by the Uniform Law Commission in
2001, but enactment was not required by the states. In 2007,
the United States signed The Hague Convention Treaty on the
International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of
Family Maintenance (Convention). She advised this Convention
contains numerous provisions that establish uniform procedures
for processing international child support cases.
2:16:29 PM
MS. BEECHER advised that in 2008 the Uniform Law Commission
amended UIFSA to incorporate changes required by the Convention.
In 2010 the United States Senate gave its advice and consent to
the treaty. In September 2014, Public Law 113-183, Preventing
Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act was signed into
law. This act requires that all United States jurisdictions
enact UIFSA 2008 in their next legislative session. For
example, she noted, for Alaska the date is July 1, 2015.
2:17:36 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked if there were states that were not doing
anything.
MS. BEECHER responded that currently all states are either
enacting, or it is in their legislature, or it is being drafted.
2:17:45 PM
MS. BEECHER continued her presentation and stated that as a
condition of the federal financial participation, which is $19
million for Alaska, each state child support agency must have an
approved state plan which meets all federal requirements. The
Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement determines whether a
state plan is approved and it is requiring states to adopt UIFSA
2008 verbatim. The CS version of HB 106 is because Version A
went before the Office of Child Support Enforcement and they
prepared amendments so that the bill would be verbatim. She
advised this was also reviewed by Legislative Legal and Research
Services and the Department of Revenue's legal staff. She
opined that this bill will amend UIFSA and that most amendments
contain clean up language and clarifying definitions. She
pointed out that the primary change is the addition of a new
section, Article 7A. [Support Proceedings under Convention] Sec.
96, [AS 25.25 is amended by adding a new section.], page 31.
She advised that this new section provides guidelines and
procedures for the registration, recognition, enforcement, and
modification of foreign support orders from countries that are
parties to the Convention. To date, 33 countries have signed
onto the Convention. Passage of this bill will provide a better
opportunity for Alaska's children to receive child support from
parents that live in a foreign country. She noted that Alaska
already enforces foreign support cases when the parent provides
sufficient documentation, and that there are processes similar
to the way the agency currently enforces between states. But,
she further noted, this tends to be a one-way street. The
agency enforces foreign order orders but many countries will not
enforce United States' orders outside of a treaty agreement.
The new section of UIFSA will not go in effect until the treaty
is ratified. Until then states will continue to enforce orders
in the same way it currently enforces.
2:20:34 PM
STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Statewide
Section Supervisor, Collections and Support Section, Civil
Division, pointed out that there are 106 section in the bill and
offered an overview sectional analysis. She described the meat
of the bill as Sec. 96, which is a new article dealing with
foreign support orders from the Convention countries. She
reiterated Ms. Beecher in that current law already provides for
Alaska to enforce foreign orders and this needs to become a two-
way street for the other countries to enforce our orders. Sec.
96, adds 13 new statutes that deal with processing requests from
other countries. Basically, she explained, it mirrors the
current process in Article VI, which is how orders are
registered now. There are a few differences on the time frame
for objecting to the registration. She referred to Sec. 20, AS
25.25.104 [Application of this chapter to resident of foreign
country and foreign support proceedings] and stated it includes
the 2008 changes. There will also be a new section, she
explained, that deals with the procedure to register a foreign
support order and designation whether using Article VI or
Article VII processes, in Sec. 95 of the bill. Another new
statute, AS 25.25.402, deals with parentage and was recently
moved from what was formerly .701, so only Article VII deals
with the foreign support orders. She offered that there are a
host of other changes directly related to the new Article VII,
of which many deal with definitions. Under the act there is a
legal fiction that a foreign country can be a "state," which is
being deleted so that a foreign country is truly a foreign
country. She remarked that it results in many statute changes,
including Secs. 1-16, as there are new definitions. She said
she determined there are 21 statutes that will be amended to add
either foreign country, or foreign tribunal, or define outside
the state, which results in 23 new sections of the bill. She
related there is clean up language fixing cross-references, and
providing for notice by electronic mail. She opined there are
many changes but the meat of it is in Sec. 96.
2:24:37 PM
MS. STEINBERG continued her analysis in that by adopting the
2008 version, the committee would be in essence adopting the
2001 changes by the Uniform Law Commission. She reiterated Ms.
Beecher in that the state is currently under the 1996 version
because that is what the federal government has mandated for
funding, and Alaska is required to update the 2001 changes. In
the statute, she remarked what is related to the 2001 changes
and in essence, she related, are clarifying changes to the laws
already on the books. In 2001, the state had been using UIFSA
for approximately 15 years and the drafters realized certain
areas needed to be "tweaked," she opined. As part of the 2001
changes there will be 3 new statutes, in that there is a change
in Sec. 40, AS 25.25.280 which deals with the application of the
act to a non-resident subject to the state's personal
jurisdiction. Another new statute, AS 25.25.615 deals with
jurisdiction to modify a child support order of a foreign
country, if that foreign country either lacks jurisdiction or
refuses jurisdiction to modify in Sec. 95. AS 25.25.281 deals
with spousal support in that a state can modify spousal support.
When is also in Sec. 40, of the bill and is not a new section as
these provision are already in current law in AS 25.25.205(f)
and .206(C). She explained that the drafter pulled those
sections out and put them in their own stand alone section. For
example, the court that sets spousal support will always have
jurisdiction over spousal support and is the only court that can
modify it, which is different from the rules on modifying child
support. She pointed out that 21 sections of the bill deal with
more clarifying amendments, for example, what court should
determine the controlling order. The clarifying amendments
touch 29 different statutes and there are 51 sections in the
bill that deal with that, she explained.
2:28:10 PM
MS. STEINBERG responded to Chair LeDoux that the bill is
something she and Ms. Beecher work with everyday and do not find
it confusing. She noted it is an excellent vehicle for child
support as when it was enacted in 1996, it was problematic
dealing with enforcing child support orders through different
states. Under this uniform law enacted in 1996, it made the
process much more efficient with the states communicating with
the same laws. She remarked that this bill expands it beyond
just the states in taking it to a more global level with the
main intent that children do get support no matter where the
parent resides.
2:29:53 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she sees the good intent of the bill
but it bothers her somewhat that if the legislature does not
pass this bill verbatim that "it's no good."
MS. STEINBERG responded that is her understanding as they have
worked closely with the Federal Office of Child Support.
Congress changed the law that applies to child support agencies,
and basically, in that law, changed the language to the states'
requirement to adopt from UIFSA 1996 to UIFSA 2008. She advised
she has been contact with the Federal Office of Child Support
and it has interpreted it to mean that each state must adopt
this in its next legislative session in order to continue to be
eligible. She explained that as part of its funding, the state
must provide a state plan and the state plan must be in
compliance in order to continue to receive funding.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that she is uncomfortable to have the
federal government say "you have to adopt this in exactly the
form we want it in, or it's no good." Within most uniform rules
there are differences between Alaska and California and Iowa,
even though they may be small differences, and are all
substantially the same. She asked that an attorney from the
federal government who deals with child support and this statute
attend the next meeting.
2:31:40 PM
MS. STEINBERG replied that in previous committee hearings
someone from the Federal Office of Child Support testify
regarding the verbatim requirement and how that affects funding.
Also available will be Ms. Lindsay Beaver, Uniform Law
Commission, to explain the uniform laws. Part of the reasoning,
she remarked, regarding uniformity amongst the states is related
to a uniform processes and mentioned that a few tweaks were
allowed as "we call it the bracketed language." For example,
not every state calls their child support agency the Child
Support Services Agency, but the actual substance of the bill
cannot be changed.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the foreign countries are adopting
something that is absolutely identical to the bill.
MS. STEINBERG answered that the foreign countries have signed
the Convention, and as part of the Convention or treaty, they
have to agree to do certain things. The Convention is outlined
as an exhibit to the committee's packet, which is similar to
Article VII regarding documents that must be provided and due
process.
2:33:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the whole topic of
collecting child support internationally became the subject of
The Hague Convention Treaty that basically said if both sides of
the countries sign onto the treaty that both sides can collect
in each other's country.
MS. STEINBERG responded "That is essentially correct," in that
prior to The Hague Convention the Federal Office of Child
Support would contract with different countries with Bi-Lateral
Treaties or Reciprocating Agreements with specific countries
like Canada and the Canadian Provinces. The problem is that it
is very time consuming and each treaty had different provisions
on the forms. She described that currently there is a "new age"
approach where instead of trying to negotiate with each
individual country that the countries come together and all
agree to the same set of forms and processes.
2:34:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN confirmed that The Hague Convention was
the means as opposed to the United States making one deal with
Canada and another with Mexico. The countries could sign on to
The Hague Convention, with the United State Senate, and that all
countries refer to The Hague Convention as a means of dealing
with this.
MS. STEINBERG responded in the affirmative and said it makes it
more efficient. She noted that part of the reason it is
critical for each state to adopt this language verbatim is that
this language is needed to implement the provisions of the
Convention because all of the states enforce child support. The
federal government directly does not address it through their
federal courts. In order for the United States to do the final
ratification process the United States must be prepared to say
it can do all the steps required under the Convention.
Basically it does not allow another country to come into the
United States - it allows that the United States will provide
services to them and will enforce their order, and likewise will
send a foreign order to the Polish central authority to enforce
the United States' child support against one of their citizens.
Another provision is that even though the United States does
some enforcement of foreign countries because law already
provides for it, it makes it better due to translation costs,
which can be very expensive. Some of the provisions will be
very helpful just in assisting the Child Support Services
Division with its enforcement. She noted that the Child Support
Services Division had to pay $1,500 for three different
translations in order to register an order in Alaska and enforce
it. Under Article VII, if it is one of the Convention
countries, it reads that the country must provide a copy in
their native language and a certified translation in English.
2:37:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why Child Support Services Division pays for
the cost of translation currently, as normally if a plaintiff
presents an order to the court the plaintiff pays the
translating fee.
MS. STEINBERG responded that Child Support Services Division
provides services to parents and is required to enforce an order
for the parent which means the order must be registered in court
before enforcing it. Child Support Services Division is
required to obtain the translation so it can be enforced for
that parent.
MS. STEINBERG, in response to Chair LeDoux, stated that the
statute does not require that the state pay for the cost of
translating, but it is part of registering an order and the
parties must understand what it says.
2:38:55 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said that Child Support Services Division could
require the parent to have the order translated, if it wanted
to.
2:39:11 PM
MS. BEECHER responded that Chair LeDoux is correct in that the
agency could require the parent to pay, but the custodial parent
is requesting services so she/he can receive child support and
the expense is so high they cannot afford it, the agency does
view it as a service it provides.
CHAIR LEDOUX quiered if there was a means test to determine
whether a custodial parent can use the agency's services.
MS. BEECHER responded "There is not."
CHAIR LEDOUX assessed that a custodial parent could have a
$200,000 income and the state would still pay for the
translation services.
MS. BEECHER answered that it is possible.
2:39:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that the federal government is
telling the states they all have to adopt the same provisions.
He said he is sensitive to government overreach but this is more
on an international level. He opined that it would be more
difficult if every state took a different path in its child
support rules.
MS. BEECHER answered in the affirmative.
2:41:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether it is part of the scenario
today, without adopting this legislation, that there are
countries that come to Alaska and collect child support from
Alaska residents, but because Alaska has not adopted statutes
that would allow enforcement of The Hague Convention that Alaska
cannot go to some countries and collect child support from that
country.
MS. BEECHER offered that the scenario is possible, but she does
not have a specific example. Due to the fact that many
countries will not collect without a treaty provision, it is
possible they will not collect for Alaska.
2:42:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that Poland is a country in which
it can collect in Alaska today, but because the statute is not
in line with The Hague Convention, Poland does not necessarily
enforce Alaska's orders.
MS. BEECHER offered to provide more specifics on that issue, but
in a general sense the situation is that the United States has
the structure, including Alaska, for collecting child support.
She noted that even in the area of enforcement with other states
there are disagreements on what can be collected and how to go
about it. She assessed that the same situation occurs when
Child Support Services Division attempts to enforce a support
order to another country.
2:43:22 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned that if the United States is allowing
another country to collect and use Alaska courts to collect
child support, and the other country is not enforcing Alaska's
child support orders, "why not play hard ball with them."
MS. BEECHER responded that as a general rule Child Support
Services Division is required to provide child support services
to people who provide the agency with the appropriate
documentation to open a child support [case]. The agency does
not view it from the perspective of Alaska and the country, but
rather as one person who needs the child support to be collected
for them.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether that would be the person living
in the other country collecting from an Alaskan citizen.
MS. BEECHER answered that it could be either way wherein the
custodial parent lives in Alaska and the agency reaches out to
the other country to collect from the non-custodial parent in
another country, or the custodial parent could live in another
country and contact Alaska to collect for it.
2:44:36 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed her concern that Alaskan courts are used
to collect money for Alaskan citizens which would go to another
country, while the other country was not honoring Alaska's child
support orders.
MS. BEECHER agreed that the scenario could occur. She clarified
that Alaska is an administrative state so most of the "orders we
do are administratively administered."
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. Beecher to explain her statement.
MS. BEECHER explained that the agency has the authority to set
up cases and enforce them unless they are set up in the courts.
She further explained that someone could go to divorce court and
as part of that proceeding child support was set, and the agency
could enforce it for the courts, but set it up in court.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned that in a child support proceeding, if
the custodial parent lives in Alaska wouldn't the parent simply
use Alaska courts to obtain another child support order. She
further questioned why the agency would enforce the child
support order from Poland, or Brazil, or Cuba, in that why
wouldn't the parent just have one from here.
2:46:09 PM
MS. STEINBERG answered that statute reads if there is no
existing child support order, the court will set one. She
further answered that if there is already an existing child
support order Child Support Services Division will enforce it.
Unless there is something wrong with the foreign order, the
order will be enforced and not put another order on top of it,
she said. It goes against the whole principle of the uniform
act which reads "there should be one order in time for the
child," so it is clear. She explained there are rules set out
in the act of when another jurisdiction can modify that order.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how it works if a child support order from
another jurisdiction is more generous than a child support order
from Alaska. Different countries, different cultures, may have
different views of divorce, and the obligation to support
children, she pointed out.
MS. STEINBERG replied that under the current process Alaska has
that problem within other states. She explained that each state
is required to have their own set of child support guidelines
and the requirement is that they have to be numeric and have to
be considered on an economic basis. She said it is permitted
under the current system so if Child Support Services Division
has the child support order it will enforce it and often the
order is in different amounts. That order is enforced until it
is modified and there are a set of rules as to what point in
time another state can modify an order.
2:49:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested clarification in that the treaty
is not ratified until the states comply with the bill.
MS. BEECHER replied "That is correct."
2:49:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he found it novel as instead of the
United States Senate voting to ratify or not ratify, they
evidentially changed the law to say that all states must comply
in order for it to work. He described the bill in the context
of a threat that "if you don't do this we are going to take your
money away," and referred to comments by the Department of Law
that the bill is for Alaska's benefit because it had input
through its uniform commissioners. He opined that Alaskans have
more access to Senators Murkowski and Sullivan than they do to
the Uniform Law Commissioners. He described it as an odd
process put upon Alaska by the United States Congress and it
appears heavy handed and also impossible in that all states
would pass the legislation verbatim.
MS. BEECHER responded that this is an unprecedented way of
dealing with what is essentially a treaty. She explained it
could be interpreted as being much more beneficial to the states
and rather anti-federalist because it puts the vote for
ratification in the states' hands by way of requiring each child
support agency to adopt the amendments to the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
was drafted by the Uniform Law Commission but it was based on
input from all of the various states. The language itself is
the vehicle of child support agencies across the United States
that have worked together to figure out ways to enforce child
support across the line. Rather than having language that came
down from a signed treaty from the federal government, written
by the federal government, telling states they must enforce it
and this is the language. Instead, she noted, the federal
government chose to use the uniform act that was working well
between the states and has been an excellent vehicle in
enforcing interstate child support orders.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he found it unsettling as it appears
to be an administrative act that Alaska is being told to "rubber
stamp" this, and trust us. It comes from the federal system,
and everyone has a different evaluation but 18 trillion in debt
and climbing ...
2:53:38 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked if Congress will ratify this Convention once
the states have adopted the bill, or is the ratification
automatic after the states have adopted the bill.
MS. STEINBERG responded that President Barack Obama signed the
treaty, then the treaty goes through the ratification process
and noted that the Senate already gave its advice and consent.
The next step is that all states adopt the implementing language
for the Convention because the United States has to say it is
going to do these things, and the things it agrees to do are in
the bill. After all 50 states have adopted the legislation, it
goes back to the President Obama to officially sign the
Instruments of Ratification that are then deposited with the
Kingdom of the Netherlands. Normally with a treaty it is
ratified by the United States Senate and it gives its advice and
consent. This is a different approach in that the states have
the implementing language so basically the United States can say
it has all of the procedures in place to enforce "your" child
support orders. She reiterated Ms. Beecher in that from the
child support perspective it is seen as a good thing because
child support agencies had input, and state law commissioners
drafted the changes specifically.
2:55:57 PM
MS. STEINBERG responded to Representative Gruenberg that if
Alaska is going to set a divorce and the father lives in Poland
and has never been to Alaska, Alaska will not have jurisdiction
to set a child support order over him. Alaska does not have
personal jurisdiction in that situation so the mother could come
to Child Support Services Division and ask for its assistance.
Child Support Services Division would then ask the Poland
authorities to set a child support order for the mother.
CHAIR LEDOUX assessed that even the existence of the child is an
action as to the conception of the child being an action of the
person in Poland. That action, having impregnated the woman
living in Alaska, would it not be enough to confer personal
jurisdiction. In many cases, personal jurisdiction meant the
person had to be there in order to confer, and then the courts
expanded that with "minimum contacts." She asked whether the
existence of the child in Alaska would be enough to confer
minimum contacts according to Alaska laws.
2:59:52 PM
MS. STEINBERG related that the mere existence of the child in
Alaska would not be sufficient minimum contacts. Alaska does
have strong "long arm" provisions when a person is not in Alaska
setting up the fictions as minimum contacts. Under this
scenario if the father has never been to Alaska, Alaska courts
do not have personal jurisdiction. Alaska has due process
standards and Poland could look at the Alaska order and
determine that the Polish citizen was not given notice, and
Alaska does not have jurisdiction over him so would not enforce
the order,
3:00:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined it would not make a difference
if there was notice, as notice does not confer jurisdiction. He
pointed out that within the Alaska Civil Code of Procedure an
article that deals with jurisdiction in Jonz v.
Garrett/AireSearch Corp., 490 P.2d 1197 (Alaska 1971), which
basically says the same as the California long arm statute, and
if there is jurisdiction under the United States Constitution
there is jurisdiction in Alaska. Under child custody it's more
of an in rem situation and if the child is in Alaska for six
months there is jurisdiction even if the other parent is not in
Alaska. He advised support works like this and it is somewhat
antiquated
3:01:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what exactly the United States
Senate did when it considered the bill. He further asked how it
can take up the bill for consideration but not give advice and
consent and somehow do something "wrung off." He requested more
information about exactly what the United States Senate did and
how it fits in. The legislation is dealing with international
situations and the notion that every state "gets" to do its own
thing in the international context is appealing from the state's
power, but is not consistent with the notion that "we are one
nation and we work with other nations."
MS. BEECHER asked whether Representative Claman was referring
specifically to the United States Senate advice and consent to
the treaty.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said it appears the United States Senate
took some action in 2010, but it was different from
ratification. He stated there was a vote in the Senate that
approved it, but it is more complicated than simply saying here
is the treaty, it was approved and given advice and consent. He
offered that it did something less than that and would like to
understand what it did.
3:03:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN requested a simplistic answer to his
question of what would happen if this bill failed to pass the
Alaska legislature.
MS. BEECHER offered that the Alaska Child Support program is
required to have an approved state plan and it must be in line
with federal requirements. Public Law 113-183 mandated that all
states adopt UIFSA 2008 by the end of its first legislative
session.
MS. BEECHER responded to Representative Lynn that Public Law
113-183 was passed by the United States Congress and signed by
President Obama on September 29, 2014. The consequences are
that Alaska would not be eligible for the 66 percent match, and
it would also follow into the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grant which is at $45 million that the
state receives. She explained that would also be at risk
because Alaska is required to have an approved child support
agency in order to receive the grant funds. The federal
government told the agency that Alaska funds are at risk and it
is mandated to follow the law in order to be eligible for those
funds.
3:04:48 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether the treaty becomes law if only
49 states pass the legislation, or can Alaska hold it up if it
so chose.
MS. BEECHER answered it is the agency's understanding that all
United States jurisdictions must pass UIFSA 2008 to ratify the
treaty. Essentially, she noted, the treaty would not pass until
Alaska conceded to that vote.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised she is holding the bill over and requested
that a federal attorney experienced in UIFSA attend the next
meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that a uniform commissioner
also attend the next meeting.
[HB 106 was held over.]
3:05:58 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB106(STA) Brief Synopsis 032615.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Fiscal Note-0897-DOR-CSS-2-6-15.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Fiscal Note-JUD.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Fiscal Note-LAW.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Sectional Analysis - CSHB106(STA).pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Supporting Document - Murkowksi Letter.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 ver W.PDF |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| CS HB 75 Version V.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |