Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/04/2017 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB97 | |
| HB16 | |
| SB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to industrial hemp; and relating to
controlled substances."
9:57:05 AM
SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for
hearing the bill. She recounted that several farmers who
wanted to grow hemp had contacted her office the previous
spring. She noted that the farmers were particularly
interested due to the privatization of the meat plant in
Palmer. She highlighted that hemp was a nutritious, easy to
grow, and fast growing forage that could be used for
livestock. Farmers were working to build up their herds in
order to have locally grown beef and pork in Alaska's
grocery stores. She cited Kentucky as another state where
ranches were growing hemp.
Senator Hughes discussed the history of hemp. Some of the
early drafts of the Declaration of Independence had been
drafted on hemp paper. Additionally, hemp had been used to
make sails for boats traveling to America and for covered
wagons. In 1937, related to marijuana, hemp had been made
illegal in the U.S. In recent decades and because of
federal legislation, hemp was on the rise in the U.S. She
believed it was another economic opportunity for farmers
and growers in Alaska. In addition to feed for animals,
there were more than 25,000 uses for hemp. She pointed out
that because of federal law, the bill was more complicated
than one that was previously offered by former Senator
Johnny Ellis. She had begun with the draft language from
the previous bill, but once she had learned of changes at
the federal level the bill had grown somewhat. She stressed
the importance of the economic opportunity for Alaska.
10:00:40 AM
Senator Hughes communicated there had been tremendous
support across the state for the bill. She noted that one
person expressed concern that the bill could result in a
money pit and grow the Division of Agriculture. She shared
that the division director and other agency staff were
available online who could assure the committee the concern
would not come to fruition. She reported that some other
states that had not been in a fiscal bind had appropriated
money to add staff to their departments of agriculture. She
explained that it was not the intention of SB 6. She
believed the issue would be manageable and highlighted that
registration user fees would cover any costs.
10:01:41 AM
BUDDY WHITT, STAFF, SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, discussed the
Sectional Analysis for SB 6 (copy on file):
Sec. 1 Page 1, Lines 6-9
Intent language that the legislature will reevaluate
the regulation of industrial hemp in seven years.
Sec. 2 AS 03.05.010 Pages 1, 2 and 3, lines 1 - 10
Section one of the bill amends Title 3 to give
additional powers and duties to the Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture, to adopt
regulations relating to Industrial Hemp. This section
also stipulates that the prescribed regulations must
include provisions for approved sources of hemp seed
and testing requirements (paid for by the registrant).
This section also stipulates that a list of registered
hemp growers must be provided to the Marijuana Control
Board and the Department of Public Safety.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about lines 26 and 27 on page 2 of
the bill. She had read the backup document entitled
"Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp" [published in
the Federal Register Volume 81, No. 156, dated Friday,
August 12, 2016] (copy on file), which provided guidance
from the federal government on the subject of industrial
hemp. She referred to the first paragraph of page 2 of the
statement:
?the importation of viable cannabis seeds must be
carried out by persons registered with the DEA to do
so.
Co-Chair MacKinnon read from page 2, lines 26 and 27 of the
bill:
(A) specify approved sources or varieties of hemp seed
to be grown, sold, or offered for sale...
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought the notice did not provide
"offer for sale" allowances anywhere. She noted it provided
for research by a higher education university or the state
agriculture program. She wondered if the bill would preempt
federal law, or whether the state had to comply with
federal law. She asked what was happening with the seeds.
She remarked that seeds were also discussed on page 2,
lines 14 and 15 of the bill pertaining to transportation
and movement. She wondered about the conflict between the
two documents.
10:04:47 AM
Mr. Whitt replied that the document referenced by Co-Chair
MacKinnon was a statement of principles on industrial hemp.
He explained that after the Farm Act of 2014 defined
industrial hemp and made it legal to create hemp pilot
programs at the state level, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture had submitted the statement of principals in
August 2016. The issue pertained more to the regulatory arm
of federal law. He stated that there was a second act, the
Omnibus bill of 2015 passed by Congress that had included
additional provisions for the transportation of hemp and
hemp seeds across state lines. He offered to provide the
materials to the committee. He explained that the federal
government would issue an associated statement of
principles at some time in the future. He deferred to the
department regarding registration with the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA). He had worked with the
Division of Agriculture and the previous committee of
referral to include language pertaining to idea of
certifying industrial hemp seed.
10:06:46 AM
ROB CARTER, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, PALMER (via
teleconference), stated that federal guidelines were
guidelines. He thought the bill did a good job at setting
the foundation and cornerstone for the growth and
sustainability of an industrial hemp program in Alaska. He
believed there could be interpretations of all of the
forms, none of it was completely clear. Within the
agricultural pilot program resulting from the 2014 farm
bill was a program to study the growth, cultivation, and
marketing. He believed the interpretation of marketing was
the to "offer for sale" language. The reason for specifying
approved seed sources was to ensure the state maintained
the federal guideline to stay within 0.3 percent THC seed
sources or lower.
Co-Chair MacKinnon read from the statement of principles:
Section 7606 specifically authorized certain entities
to ``grow or cultivate'' industrial hemp but did not
eliminate the requirement under the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act that the importation
of viable cannabis seeds must be carried out by
persons registered with the DEA to do so.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that a person had to be
registered with the DEA. She asked if Mr. Carter was
stating it was a guideline when the statement of principles
read that it "did not eliminate."
Mr. Carter affirmed that the guideline and bullet point
were there. He stipulated that in any
importation/exportation or intra/interstate commerce of
viable cannabis seeds would require a permit from the DEA
(form 225). He elaborated that a person could not apply for
the permit through the DEA unless they were a program
registrant.
10:09:14 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if other states had interpreted
marketing as "the sale of."
Mr. Carter believed Colorado, Oregon, and Kentucky had
started using the pilot program and marketing language to
make all parts of industrial hemp, including seeds, to be
made or offered for sale within their state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon read additional language from the
statement of principles:
For purposes of marketing research by institutions of
higher education or State departments of agriculture
(including distribution of marketing materials), but
not for the purpose of general commercial activity,
industrial hemp products may be sold in a State...
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought the language specified that hemp
could not be sold. She asked for clarification.
Mr. Carter replied that he did not have the document and
wanted to review it. He reported that everyone he had
spoken with in other states with hemp programs had
communicated that the sales of industrial hemp and
marketing had been occurring through their industrial hemp
pilot programs. He offered to look into the issue further
and follow up with the committee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon read another bullet point:
Only the State Department of Agriculture and persons
licensed, registered, or otherwise authorized to
conduct research under an agricultural pilot program
in accordance with this section.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to understand how research could
be taken into an economic activity that would be available
for Alaskans as an income generator. She asked Mr. Carter
to follow up with clarification.
10:11:35 AM
Mr. Whitt notified that committee that attorney Courtney
Moran had been working with the sponsor's office. She was
familiar with the industrial hemp programs in other states
and with how federal and state laws had intertwined. He
believed she may be able to provide additional information.
COURTNEY MORAN, EARTH LAW LLC, PORTLAND (via
teleconference), pointed out that the statement of
principles was a general guidance document. She elaborated
it was important to note that subsection 2 of the document
read that "This Statement of Principles does not establish
any binding legal requirements." She detailed that
marketing research was being conducted in the majority of
states implementing industrial hemp programs. She expounded
that marketing required sales of products. The bullet point
specifically stated that the product may not be used for
the purpose of general commercial activity; it further
stated that the products may not be sold in states where
such sale was prohibited.
Ms. Moran explained that if a state did not have an
established program or was otherwise prohibiting the
particular products, the products should not be sold there.
The language was not an outright prohibition on the
research that Congress had specifically provided for in
Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act, which specifically
provided for marketing research. The legislation provided
for the development of an agricultural pilot program in the
state. Therefore, registrants registered with the Division
of Agriculture would be able to engage in market research.
10:13:51 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if someone engaging in market
research normally sold the product for profit. Ms. Moran
answered that some people were doing that.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that some people were doing
that. She asked if that qualified as research.
Ms. Moran replied in the affirmative. She questioned how a
market could be developed or studied if people were not
engaging in sales within the market. She confirmed it was
the practice in Oregon, Colorado, and Kentucky (and
potentially other states).
10:14:27 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to Section 2 of the
legislation. She pointed to page 2, line 24 through page 3,
line 10 outlining regulations for the industry to adopt.
She noted that under the guidance [in the statement of
principles] there was language related to a GPS location of
all crops. She saw the language later in the legislation
and wondered why it was not included in Section 2. She
clarified that one of the bullet points in the statement of
principles included criteria to include in legislation in
order to be consistent with the federal guidelines. She
read an excerpt of the bullet point:
...it is recommended that such registration should
include the name of the authorized manufacturer, the
period of licensure or other time period during which
such person is authorized by the State to manufacture
industrial hemp, and the location, including Global
Positioning System coordinates...
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the reference should also be
included in Section 2.
Mr. Whitt stated that the bill's provision on GPS location
was a direction from the federal government. The additional
regulatory requirements were added after the GPS provision
had already been included. The sponsor had no issue with
requiring it under regulation and the provision included
was sufficient to meet federal guidelines. The intent was
that a grower would disclose the location of their crop.
Where the provision appeared in the bill should not make a
huge difference, but the bill sponsor would be amenable to
a change if the committee deemed it important enough to
include it under regulatory requirements.
10:17:37 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that the provision was
included in another section of the bill. She did not know
whether there was a differentiation for including it under
the powers and duties of the commissioner of the Department
of Natural Resources.
Mr. Whitt clarified that it made no difference where the
provision appeared in the bill; wherever its location, it
would still be a requirement.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised the issue was important because
[hemp] leaves looked exactly like higher producing THC
plants. She asked if her statement was accurate.
Mr. Whitt replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted law enforcement to be able to
recognize a crop that would be for other purposes than THC
content.
Mr. Whitt agreed.
10:18:33 AM
Senator von Imhof stated that she had heard the bill in the
Senate Resources Committee. She detailed that the committee
had been concerned with how to handle the fact that the
[hemp and marijuana] leaves looked identical. She recalled
testimony that [hemp] plants had to be registered, spacing
was tighter (one foot apart as opposed to three to four
feet apart as with marijuana plants), GPS was used, and
pictures were taken on a daily basis. She had wondered
about cloudy days and times when there was snow on the
ground. She believed the sponsor and her staff had done a
good job answering questions in the Senate Resources
Committee as well.
Co-Chair MacKinnon spoke to the importance of the issue
addressed by the bill and explained it could provide an
economic opportunity, particularly in the district
represented by Senator Hughes where farming was common. She
added that the community also grew marijuana and carrots.
She stated that the district was a good agricultural
community that was wanting another product to invest in.
10:20:31 AM
Mr. Whitt continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 3 AS 03.05.010 Page 3, lines 22-28
This section instructs the department to issue a stop
order to any person growing a plant with a THC level
over .3 percent and to notify the Marijuana Control
Board and the Department of Public Safety when any
stop sale order is issued.
Sec. 4 AS 03.05.076 Page 3, lines 29-31, Page 4 and
Page 5, lines 1-27
Title 3, Chapter 5 is amended by adding a new section
for Industrial Hemp and guidelines for registered
producers and the department. This section establishes
that:
(a)Industrial Hemp will be classified as an
agricultural crop in the state of Alaska. Those
wishing to produce industrial hemp must register with
the Division of Agriculture with information that must
include but is not limited to; name, address, and
global positioning coordinates of the area to be used
for production.
(b)An individual who is registered with the state of
Alaska may
1. Produce industrial hemp
2. Use any propagation method needed to produce
industrial hemp.
3. Retain hemp seeds for the purpose of growing
hemp in the future.
4. Retain and recondition hemp that tests between
.3 percent and 1 percent THC on a dry weight
basis, but industrial hemp intended for
consumption in any form cannot exceed a .3
percent THC level.
(c)An individual who is registered with the state of
Alaska shall
1. Comply with testing standards and procedures
as established in regulation
2. Retain record of sale for three years,
including the name and address of the person who
received the industrial hemp and the amount sold
or transferred.
3. Make records available to the department
during normal business hours and the department
must give three days' notice of inspection.
(d)The Department shall
1. Establish fee levels.
2. Annually review fee levels.
3. Notify the MCB and DPS when they have issued a
stop sale order.
4. Require a person producing industrial hemp
over 1 percent to destroy their crop.
(e)The Department may
1. Issue a stop sale order or violation for those
growing industrial hemp without a registration.
2. Adopt regulations for approved shipping
documents for industrial hemp.
3. Conduct random tests and inspections.
(f)The Division of Agriculture, a registered producer,
or any institution of higher education may import
and/or sell industrial hemp seeds.
(g)Industrial hemp intended for human consumption
cannot exceed .3 percent THC, cannot be used for
hashish or hashish oil and CBD oil is not considered
hashish or hashish oil for the purposes of this
section.
(h) Producing Industrial Hemp without a registration
is a violation that carries a fine of $500.
10:24:12 AM
Mr. Whitt continued reviewing the Sectional Analysis:
AS 03.05.077 Page 5, Lines 28-31 and Page 6, Lines 1-4
In keeping with federal law, this section adds
language regarding a pilot program for industrial
hemp, that the Division of Agriculture, institute of
higher education or a registered grower may
participate in the pilot program and the Division of
Agriculture may adopt regulations for this section.
AS 03.05.078 Page 6, lines 5-15
Authorized copy of a current hemp registration is
required when transporting industrial hemp and a copy
of the registration must be presented upon request of
a law enforcement officer. Using a mobile electronic
device to store proof of registration is acceptable
and displaying proof is such a way is not consent for
a peace officer to access any other information on a
person's personal mobile electronic device.
AS 03.05.079 Page 6, lines 16-20
A registered grower of industrial hemp is guilty of a
violation when they produce industrial hemp with a THC
content of between .3 percent and 1 percent.
10:25:45 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon pointed to language at the top of page 4
of the bill that addressed individuals would be registered
for one year. She noted she had asked earlier whether the
GPS language in the section should be included elsewhere in
the bill. She referenced line 14, item (4) related to
retaining and reconditioning [of specific industrial hemp].
She thanked the sponsor's office for coming to her office
to review the bill. She did not see a definition of
"reconditioning" and asked Mr. Whitt to provide detail for
the public.
Mr. Whitt replied that Mr. Carter had provided a written
response (copy on file). He detailed that Mr. Carter could
speak to the standard practice of reconditioning as it
related to agricultural products.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Carter to provide a
recognizable definition of reconditioning in regard to
agriculture.
Mr. Carter stated that reconditioning was a widely used
practice in agricultural crops, commodities, and seeds.
Reconditioning was done with most grains and grasses and
seeds sold around the world. He elaborated that if
something did not meet a grade or set tolerance, there were
options to try to improve that lot. The definition of a lot
was a field harvested, a collection of one that was
contiguous.
Mr. Carter provided an example where an acre of industrial
hemp was grown. At the time of testing the hemp came out to
be 0.35 percent. He explained that given a short growing
season and significant investment by a farmer, it was not
desirable to put the farmer in a situation where they could
not generate revenue or utilize the crop. He expounded that
if a crop came in to be a bit higher (between 0.3 and 1
percent THC value), with the approval of the division, the
registrant could blend the lot that was a bit over with a
lot that was under the minimum requirement to achieve the
appropriate level. He explained that if the lot still did
not meet the requirement it would be recommended to be
destroyed. He relayed that the practice was very unique to
the industrial hemp industry because it depended on the
type and parts of plants being used. He furthered that two
noncontiguous fields of stocks, leaves, and flowers used
for feed or fiber could be blended at the baling time at
the processing facility to drop the overall THC value below
the 0.3 percent.
10:29:46 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether Alaska statute included a
definition of recondition and whether a definition was
needed. She explained that in other bill sections specified
that a crop with 1 percent or more [THC] needed to be
burned. She wondered how a grower would know if they should
burn or try to recondition the crop. She asked if it was a
normal process a grower would undertake.
Mr. Carter answered that the threshold to retain and
recondition industrial hemp was between 0.3 percent and 1
percent (page 4, line 14 of the bill). He elaborated that
if a lot fell between 0.3 and 1 percent, it had the option,
under the direction of the division, to be reconditioned.
He explained the lot would have to be destroyed if it
tested above 1 percent. The state did not have a definition
of reconditioning [in statute]. He noted the division also
addressed reconditioning in its other seed regulations.
10:31:10 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon was interested in the section of the
bill that specified crops above 1 percent [THC] would be
destroyed. She discussed that within a field there may be a
plant producing a higher rate than anticipated. She asked
if a grower would continually mix a product down or get rid
of certain plants if a larger group of plants produced a
higher content. She wondered how a grower would know at
what point to burn versus recondition.
Mr. Carter directed attention to page 5, line 5, of the
bill, which required an individual registered under the
section whose industrial hemp tested over 1 percent THC to
destroy the product, so it could not be used for the
purpose of reconditioning. The section set the upper
threshold - that anything over 1 percent would be
destroyed. He agreed that a THC level between 0.3 percent
and 1 percent would allow a producer to begin the
reconditioning process. He relayed that regulations would
establish the testing requirements and testing would likely
not occur until around harvest time. He explained that
industrial hemp had been outlawed for over 70 years so no
one was certain what the values of THC would be through the
growing season. He considered whether levels would be
affected by environmental conditions (e.g. if one grower
watered more than another). Part of the research of the
pilot program was to gain the information. He believed the
threshold language provided growers the ability to blend
lots to meet the threshold.
10:33:20 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop provided a scenario where a crop held a
couple of rogue seeds. He wondered how random testing and
inspections would be conducted. He expressed concern about
the possibility of inadvertent wild seeds that might
adversely affect a large acreage of crops.
Mr. Carter concurred. He detailed that like any other
agricultural crop, there were set protocols for sampling
fields or seed lots, which would be defined in regulation
based on size and planting density. He expounded that
industrial hemp was planted similarly to wheat or barley at
1 million to 1.2 million seeds per acre. He explained that
hemp crops looked like an extremely large and tall crop of
cereal grains. The sampling protocols would be defined in
regulation. He explained that the agricultural industry
allowed the option for roguing or to remove certain
diseased, virus, or insect plants. He believed it would be
a bit more difficult basing an inspection on THC values
because it would not be a visual inspection and would
require testing in a laboratory. He furthered that if a
crop ended up with one or two "hot" seeds above 0.3 percent
or over 1 percent out of a field of 1 million seeds per
acre, the representative sample was a process. He
acknowledged that the testing did not catch everything, but
how lots were tested nationally and internationally was a
set standard. The testing would provide the best
opportunity for the producer to have a representative
sample for testing.
10:36:32 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop thought it was interesting that the
Alaska agricultural experimental stations had been growing
hemp in 1916. He wondered if records were available at the
University of Alaska to learn about the THC content in
1916.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she had additional questions
in the regulation of hemp oil being added to food. She
remarked that Alaska regulated food only in the crop form,
but not in the content that may be put into food. She
relayed her intent to move to public testimony.
Senator Hughes commented that it was helpful to understand
that marijuana growers were aiming for THC levels between
20 and 30 percent. She thought the information was useful
as a barometer when considering THC levels of 1 percent or
below.
Co-Chair MacKinnon agreed the point was important to note.
She added that individuals growing marijuana for medical
purposes were looking for a much higher THC level.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony on version E of
SB 6.
10:38:37 AM
STEVE ST. CLAIR, SELF, MAT-SU (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. He was not opposed to
farming of hemp, but he was opposed to increasing the scope
of government by creating additional regulations. He had
examined Washington, Kentucky, and Colorado hemp programs
and had learned they were not fiscally self-sustaining. He
stated that the Colorado program was almost self-sustaining
after three years - fees had to be increased for the
program to pay for itself. He referred to a fiscal note by
the Department of Natural Resources specifying the
department would adopt regulations and manage associated
registrations through existing staff. He thought it sounded
like the bill would have to be passed to see what it
entailed. He thought the budget had been cut to the bone.
He believed the Division of Agriculture would have to spend
excess funds that it should not have to begin with. He
thought the bill was fiscally irresponsible. He did not
support running pilot programs during a fiscal crisis when
the state was considering increasing taxes and taking
Permanent Fund Dividends.
10:40:46 AM
EMBER HAYNES, SELF, TALKEETNA (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. She supported the Alaska
agricultural hemp industry. She encouraged keeping the bill
as simple as possible while complying with the federal farm
bill. She shared that she and her husband were in the
business of creating hempseed oil products by infusing
Alaskan wildcrafted herbs into oil to make soaps, balms,
and tinctures. She would love to incorporate Alaskan hemp
into their products. She believed the bill was the first
step towards the possibility.
10:41:44 AM
STEVE ALBERS, KENAI SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,
KENAI (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill.
He stated that according to the 2015 Congressional research
report, annual sales of industrial hemp products in the
U.S. were about $550 million. He detailed that the U.S. was
the only developed nation that had not developed industrial
hemp on a commercial basis; therefore, the U.S. imported
all of the products from China and Canada. He stated that
Kenai Peninsula farmers were eager to explore the economic
opportunities represented by the hearty, multipurpose crop,
which could be used for food, forage, fiber, and thousands
of industrial uses. Crop trials conducted decades ago in
Alaska and hemp grown in Canada demonstrated the crop would
grow successfully in Alaska.
Mr. Albers asserted that industrial hemp presented
opportunities to farmers and could help address problems
with affordable housing and energy in Alaska. He emphasized
that the use of hemp in construction and insulation had the
potential to significantly mitigate waste in energy
consumption and other. He stated that industrial hemp fiber
provided an alternative to polypropylene products and
chemical dispersants used in oil spills and other
bioremediation efforts. He shared that each year more
states were opening the door to additional research and the
application of industrial hemp by legalizing its commercial
cultivation. He urged the committee to add Alaska to the
growing number of states and to allow farmers the ability
to pursue hemp as a viable commercial product.
10:44:28 AM
ABIGAIL ST. CLAIR, SELF, MAT-SU (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. She had found evidence that
industrial hemp in Washington, Colorado, and Kentucky was
not self-sustaining. She elaborated that the aforementioned
states had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with no
guarantee that the investment would pencil out. She had
looked at various sources including information from the
University of Kentucky and Ontario's Ministry of
Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs website. She discussed
the costs of farming hemp, and thought it was an expensive
process that the state could not afford. She listed costs
she had estimated. She emphasized that the governor had
taken half of the Permanent Fund Dividend and wanted to
introduce other taxes. She stressed that many residents
were leaving the state because the legislature had not
reduced spending. She stated that hemp would not support
the legislature's spending habits. She thought there had
been enough government intervention. She wanted to reduce
the government footprint.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
10:47:14 AM
AT EASE
10:48:13 AM
RECONVENED
SB 6 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that SB 6 would be heard again
during the afternoon meeting. She relayed that amendments
were due by Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. She provided additional
information regarding other legislation.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB97 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 97 |
| SB97 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 97 |
| HB 16 Sponsor Response to Concerns of Senate State Affairs Committee from Mtg on 3-23-17.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 16 |
| SCS HB 16- Legal Memo - Concerns from SSA Committee.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 16 |
| HB 57 Public Testimony Packet 040317.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 57 |
| SB 97 Von Imhof Amendment D.1.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 97 |
| SB 6 Carter Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |