Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/12/2021 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| HB159 | |
| HB58 | |
| HB44 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 159-CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY ACT
3:23:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 159, "An Act establishing the Consumer
Data Privacy Act; establishing data broker registration
requirements; making a violation of the Consumer Data Privacy
Act an unfair or deceptive trade practice; and providing for an
effective date."
3:23:52 PM
ASHKAN SOLTANI, Fellow, Institute for Technology, Law, and
Policy, Georgetown University Law Center, shared that he is a
technologist and researcher with over 20 years' experience in
technology, privacy, and behavioral economics. He said he has
served as Chief Technologist with the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) and Senior Advisor in the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy, co-authored the California Consumer
Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), and
is the co-creator of the proposed Global Privacy Control
standard, which creates and mechanism by which consumers can
communicate their privacy preferences. Mr. Soltani gave a brief
history of CCPA and described the lobbying efforts of businesses
against data privacy.
3:28:07 PM
MR. SOLTANI described the lobbying efforts business engage in to
prevent or weaken data privacy laws, including strategies to
battle CPRA by introducing weaker legislation in other states in
an effort to bring down the overall standard of privacy and
justify federal preemption. He pointed out that there have been
letters to the committee from business interests advocating for
Alaska to adopt the Virginia model of data privacy, the Virginia
Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA), which was drafted largely
by Amazon and other large industry interests. He expressed
approval of HB 159's definition of "pseudonymous" information,
which does not refer to individuals by name but nonetheless
permits data brokers to exchange information about individuals.
The definition responds to the realities of current digital
advertising practices, he said, in which online tracking and
profiling relies on pseudonyms such as numeric identifiers
corresponding to an individual or a device.
MR. SOLTANI expressed approval of the addition of "authorized
agents for consumer rights," and he shared that such an addition
may relieve consumers of the onerous task of requesting their
information from every business that has it. Allowing consumers
to exercise their rights through the use of an authorized agent
may assist in the development in new industry standards and
market solutions to innovate new ways to manage consumer data.
He then pointed out that HB 159 also provides consumers with the
right to know who has their information beyond the business that
initially collected it; having that knowledge, he said, may
allow consumers to request the deletion of their information or
opt out of future sales.
MR. SOLTANI suggested several changes to HB 159. He suggested
including the Global Privacy Control (GPC), which helps
implement opt-out preferences for businesses; instead of having
to go through the onerous work of opting out on each individual
website, he said, GPC would integrate with a consumer's Internet
browser. He stated that 40 million consumers already use
browsers with built-in privacy controls; GPC would allow a
consumer to click one button to opt out of all online tracking.
He said the California Office of the Attorney General has
recognized GPC as a valid standard and will begin enforcement
against companies that don't recognize GPC's opt-out function.
3:32:51 PM
MR. SOLTANI suggested that the proposed legislation be amended
to update the definition of "sale" to include "sale and
sharing." He said the business industry has begun arranging
contracts for the sharing of personal information, indicating in
the contract that a transaction was a "no value" exchange in
order to circumvent the initial prohibitions in CCPA.
MR. SOLTANI addressed verified user requests and said that the
proposed legislation should not require customers to submit
verified requests to opt out of business use of their data. He
noted that verified requests for access and deletion of data are
important since those rights, if exercised fraudulently, can
adversely impact the individual; however, simply asking a
business to not use personal data does not create the same risk,
he said, and does not need the same level of verification. He
pointed out that the proposed legislation should include that
any information collected by the business for the purpose of
opting out of data sale or sharing cannot be used for another
purpose. As an example, he said, clicking "unsubscribe" on a
spam email verifies to the company that their emails are getting
through to a live person; the company will then sell the list of
email addresses to another company, which repeats the cycle.
MR. SOLTANI addressed the possible inclusion of nonprofit
organizations, noting that they engage in the same practice of
data sharing and sale as for profit businesses. He said that
there is currently no state or federal oversight of nonprofits'
use of data information. He then stated that the largest
component of HB 159 would be enforcement; whether the Office of
the Attorney General has the right to enforce the law, or
whether there would be a private right of action.
3:38:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed that Alaska's Office of the Attorney
General doesn't currently have the technical expertise to
effectively enforce the parameters under HB 159. He asked, "How
do we put that into law, to collect an adequate amount of
revenue to sustainably fund an adequately-sized cadre of ...
[attorneys general] who will make sure this law is being
followed?"
MR. SOLTANI said that the people qualified to do such work would
normally receive "three or four times" the salary that a
government agency could pay; not only the number of staff, but
also the expertise of the staff, is critical to the
sustainability of the proposed legislation. He said that one
model is to fine the company a percentage of the money it
receives from the sale of the information; however, in many
cases the value of the transaction is not monetary. He also
discussed an "eat what you kill" model, in which the revenue
collected by fining companies is then used to build staff and
expertise.
3:42:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked what features a consumer gives up
when implementing the Global Privacy Control (GPC) in an
Internet browser.
MR. SOLTANI replied that current law requires companies to
provide a link for consumers to opt out of the sale of their
information; GPC, he said, essentially clicks that button for
the consumer. He said that the question now is, "What happens
after the button is clicked?" He stated that HB 159 would allow
companies to charge consumers different rates in direct relation
to the consumer's choice to opt out of data sharing. For
example, he said, "When a business encounters a Global Privacy
Control they could say, 'We've noticed you would like to opt out
of the sale of your personal information. Would you like to
either disable that for our site and permit us to opt in, or
would you like to pay a fee?' or whatever else the law permits
when a consumer opts out." He clarified that GPC is like a
little robot that clicks the "do not sell" link. He said that
most websites honor GPC without any extra fees to the user;
however, while the current ecosystem of the data-supported ad
economy exists on the sale of personal information, there are
new, innovative technologies that attempt to advertise without
using personal information in the same manner. Development in
contextual ads, or ads based on the website a consumer visits,
is a way for companies to sell advertisement without using a
consumer's personal information. He said companies are
innovating ways to practice sustainable advertising in the same
way there are innovations in sustainable energy.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether there exists the practice
of increasing prices for those who have opted out of having
their data sold.
MR. SOLTANI responded that the law permits that a company may
charge a person a non-usurious, non-exploitative fee in direct
relation to the sale of their personal information. He said
that in California, if a company's only revenue is from their
sale of user information, the law permits the company to charge
the customer for the use of the website. He pointed out that
companies are exploring models such as subscription services or
per-use fees.
3:47:58 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked about the best practices for the
protection of children's information.
MR. SOLTANI replied that he believes the "opt-in" requirement is
critical. He said discussed the civil penalty judgement in FTC
v. Google, No. 1:19-cv-2642 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2019), and he
shared the argument that a website that contains children's
content should be held to a higher standard.
3:50:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked for a written summary or resources
pertaining to the recommendations that have been addressed in
the hearing on HB 159.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked Mr. Soltani to email his written
testimony.
MR. SOLTANI agreed.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS noted that his staff has been keeping track of
all the recommendations from Mr. Soltani and the previous
experts, as well as the businesses that have provided testimony,
and he said he will be considering those recommendations in
drafting a committee substitute that would protect Alaska's
businesses while ensuring adequate oversight of outside
technology companies.
MR. SOLTANI added that, since the passage of CCPA and CPRA, the
business industry will fight legislation in every state. He
pointed out that the issue is so technically nuanced that
California's legislation almost included a seven-word amendment
that would have nullified the standards in the legislation.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS said that his intent is to work through the
committee substitute with the experts.
3:52:34 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the committee would hear another
portion of the sectional analysis.
3:53:01 PM
JOHN HALEY, Assistant Attorney General, Special Litigation and
Consumer Protection, Department of Law, resumed his
presentation, which commenced on April 23, 2021, of the
sectional analysis of HB 159 on behalf of the House Rules
Standing Committee by request of the governor. He said that he
previously ended his presentation just before "Article 2.
Activities and penalties regarding personal information."
3:53:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER referenced Sec. 45.49.015 and asked for a
definition of "person."
MR. HALEY replied that "person" would be defined as either a
corporation or any "natural person." He said that business not
qualifying under the definition of "business" would be "persons"
under the section in question.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER said she was trying to understand a
scenario involving businesses and "persons."
MR. HALEY responded that he hasn't thought of a situation in
which a business would disclose a person's personal information
to a legislator. He said the main intent is to address
businesses sharing information with corporations that wouldn't
normally meet the definition of "business." He said that an
individual should be able to understand which, and how many,
businesses have their personal information by making a request
of the initial collector. The sharing of information with
smaller corporations who don't meet the definition of "business"
or with "individual humans," he said, is a scenario on which he
would need to consider further.
3:56:24 PM
MR. HALEY resumed detailing the sectional analysis, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 45.49.100. Retaliation prohibited.
As the subject suggests, this section prohibits a
business from retaliating against a consumer that
exercises their rights under this chapter and lists
examples of activities that may be considered
retaliation. A business may, however, provide a
different rate or quality if it is reasonably related
to the value provided to the business by the
consumer's data. A business may also provide consumers
with a financial incentive for collection, sale, or
retention of information, so long as the business
notifies the consumer of the incentives and obtains
consent before entering a customer into a financial
incentive program. Financial incentive practices may
not be unjust, unreasonable, coercive, or usurious.
3:58:37 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that page 15, lines 7-8, of the
text of HB 159, says "(2) charging different prices or rates for
goods or services, including through the use of discounts or
other benefits or imposing penalties;". She pointed out that
page 15, lines 13-16, says that business may charge different
prices or rates. She asked Mr. Haley to comment on the apparent
conflict between the two statements.
MR. HALEY responded that the intent is to provide a general rule
with a condition that the difference in price or rate must be
reasonably related to the value provided by the sale of data.
3:59:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether the problem is in the
writing or in the "pure difficulty" of the concept. He said,
"To say that it has to be equal, but then it can be different,
that just seems like a stiff challenge."
MR. HALEY replied that the general rule is that while a business
could not retaliate against a person for disallowing the sale of
their information, a business may charge a different rate or
provide a different level of service if the difference is
reasonably related to the value of the data.
4:00:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked Mr. Haley whether there is a reason
that outright denying a good or service would not be allowed.
MR. HALEY responded that the subsection is attempting to create
a scenario where consumers are always going to be able to have
at least some ability to access various services and social
media companies without having to give up their privacy rights.
If denying a service was included, he said, it wouldn't fit well
within the concept because it's not possible to provide a
different rate for a service when that service is denied
altogether. He said that complete denial of a service would
mean that consumers could be faced with losing a service they've
used for years.
4:03:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ commented that a business could force
acceptance of data sharing by refusing to continue providing
services.
4:03:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE expressed the idea of a social media site
such as Facebook being so integrated into the fabric of society
that it could be regulated like a utility. He asked, "Is it a
private business that has the ability to exclude access ... or
is it a common piece of infrastructure to society that should be
regulated on a federal level?"
4:04:24 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS pointed out that Facebook can't be used on a
smart phone unless it has access to an individual's private
phone contacts. He said he would like to see functional federal
regulations but, he said, "Congress is broken, so I think we
have no choice but to do it in Alaska."
4:05:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN shared his belief that social media
companies regularly ban users because of their political
beliefs. He mentioned the possibility of a consumer bill of
rights and said that there may be "traps" which may never be
reconciled within the current structure.
4:05:55 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opined that the challenge with broader
principles is that there would be endless litigation.
4:06:20 PM
MR. HALEY resumed his presentation of the sectional analysis,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 45.49.110. Transfer of information in a merger or
acquisition.
This section authorizes a business to transfer
personal information to a third-party as part of a
merger or acquisition of all or part of the business.
If the new owner decides to change the policy for use
or sharing of the personal information in a material
way, they must notify the consumer before making the
change and ensure that existing customers can easily
exercise their rights under this chapter. The new
owner may not make material, retroactive privacy
policy or other changes in a manner that violates
state law.
Sec. 45.49.120. Duty to maintain reasonable security
measures.
Under this section, a business that owns,
licenses, or maintains personal information has to
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures
to protect the information from unauthorized access,
destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
4:07:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether there is an advocacy group
that has set some standard that could be referred to as
"reasonable." He then asked Mr. Haley to comment on the
definition of "reasonable" from the perspective of the
Department of Law.
MR. HALEY responded that concepts such as two-step
authentication exist for privacy protections. He pointed out
that, while the term "reasonable" is a term that has a degree of
vagueness, it's a common standard in law and is necessary
because standards change over time. He said that two-step
authentication has become standard because of the way scammers'
techniques have developed over time. He said that as technology
changes, standards of what is reasonable also change.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE commented that the Federal Trade
Commission may have such standards in place.
4:09:31 PM
MR. HALEY resumed his presentation of the sectional analysis for
HB 149, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 45.49.130. Violations.
This section makes a violation of this chapter a
violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act under AS 45.50.471 45.50.561. This
section also creates a presumption that a consumer
whose personal information is subjected to
unauthorized activity has suffered a loss of $1 or an
amount proven at trial. The number of violations may
be counted by each action or omission, each person
affected, or each day the activity continues,
whichever is greater. Funds recovered as a result of
an action under this section may be appropriated to
the consumer privacy account created in AS 45.49.140,
below, for the Department of Law to offset costs
incurred in connection with enforcing this chapter.
MR. HALEY said that in order to bring a claim against a business
under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, an
individual would be required to show an ascertainable loss of
money or property. He said that it's very likely that a
consumer would not be able to demonstrate such a loss because a
business may refuse to respond to a disclosure request. He
pointed out that if an action is brought under AS 45.50.531, the
Private Person Unfair Trade Practices Act, an automatic loss of
$1 is created in order to get a business into court.
4:13:57 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 159 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 12 version A 5.7.2021.PDF |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Testimony Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce 5.7.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Testimony Department of Defense 5.7.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Research Division of Corporations Military Licensing Presentation 5.7.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Sponsor Statement 5.7.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Supporting Document- Top Spouse Professions DoD 2012.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM SL&C 4/26/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Supporting Document- Millitary Courtesy License Statute.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM SL&C 4/26/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Supporting Document - DCCED.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM SL&C 4/26/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM SSTA 3/4/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 2.26.2021.PDF |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| HB 58 -Additional Support Received as of 5.11.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Letters of Support as of 5.6.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Fiscal Note DOA-DRB 4.12.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Fiscal Note DCCED-DOI 4.9.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Fiscal Note DHSS-MS 4.9.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Additional Document - Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives 4.1.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Additional Document - HRSA Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 v. B 4.22.2021.PDF |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - Unintended Pregnancies Study March 2011 3.30.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - UCSF Study Newspaper Article 2.11.2011.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - Guttmacher Public Costs from Unintended Pregnancies February 2015 3.30.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Sponsor Statement v. B 4.22.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - Guttmacher Alaska Statistics 2016 3.30.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Sectional Analysis v. B 4.22.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Sectional Analysis v. I.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Sectional Analysis, v. I.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Sponsor Statement, v. I.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Summary of Sectional Analysis, v. I.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Explanation of changes version A to I.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) v. I.PDF |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Fiscal Note, DCCED, 4.6.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Legal Services Memo 3-17-2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Legal Services Memo 3-15-2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/16/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 159 - Additional Public Comment Received as of 5.11.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Sectional Analysis version A 4.1.21.pdf |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Sponsor Statement version A 4.1.21.pdf |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 version A 3.31.21.PDF |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Fiscal Note DCCED 3.31.2021.PDF |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Fiscal Note Law 3.31.2021.PDF |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Testimony Received as of 4.26.21.pdf |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Ad Trade Letter of Opposition 4.22.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/5/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 44 Follow-Up Attachment - Legislative Report by Profession - FY20.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Follow-Up Information from CBPL (5.11.21).pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 159 Invited Testimony Bill Suggestions - Chris Koa.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Invited Testimony - Ashkan Soltani 5.17.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Testimony, Ashkan Soltani, 5.17.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |