Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/10/2015 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB13 | |
| HB1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 1-STATE ARCTIC POLICY
8:12:17 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 1, "An Act declaring the Arctic policy of the state."
[Before the committee was CSHB 1(EDA).]
8:12:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 1. He said the legislature created the
Alaska Arctic Policy Commission (AAPC) in the spring of 2012,
via House Concurrent Resolution 23, and the mandate was to
release a final report on January 30, 2015, and introduce a bill
stating Alaska's Arctic policy. He noted that [HB 1] had been
through one committee of referral. He relayed that the products
released on January 30 were: a final report, an executive
summary, and an implementation plan. Representative Herron
stated that HB 1 meets the statutory requirement of introducing
an Arctic policy bill for the legislature to consider. He said
it was pre-filed and was a product of the AAPC, following two
years of vigorous dialog. He said Section 1 is legislative
intent, while Section 2 would "go into the blue books."
Representative Herron stated that HB 1 would put Alaskans first,
strengthen the state's position with the federal government and
other Arctic nations, and lead to economic betterment in
Alaska's Arctic region.
8:14:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON noted that his staff was available to
offer a sectional analysis of HB 1. Further, he said Nils
Andreassen, an AAPC member and executive director of Institute
of the North, and Dr. Butler were available for questions.
8:15:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON highlighted the four important elements of
Alaska's Arctic policy under HB 1, which read as follows [from
the sponsor statement, original punctuation provided]:
1) Uphold the state's commitment to economically
vibrant communities while maintaining a healthy
environment;
2) Collaborate with all appropriate entities to
achieve transparent and inclusive Arctic decision-
making;
3) Enhance Alaska's security by strengthening Arctic
safety; and
4) Value and strengthen the resilience of arctic
communities and respect & integrate the culture and
knowledge of Arctic peoples.
CHAIR LYNN said he would like a sectional analysis.
8:16:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER mentioned [the declaration of state Arctic
policy, beginning on page 2, line 25], and he asked if, by
supporting HB 1, he would be "throwing away ... some kind of
responsibility in the sense of constructive criticism."
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON responded that he does not think so. He
said this is a starting point to Alaska's Arctic policy and it
has to evolve. For example, he said there may be strategies
that become available that Alaska may want to adopt.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for a summary of the strategic
recommendations of the implementation plan developed by the
AAPC, so he could better understand what he was being asked to
support. He said he was aware that the committee packet
included an implementation plan booklet. He emphasized that he
appreciated Representative Herron's work on the commission.
8:20:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON responded that the implementation plan is
a valuable part of the report because it gives recommendations
with justifications. He said the commission explains who should
be the lead, the governor, someone in a department, or the
legislature, describes the resources needed, and has "an
execution." This is followed by legislative action and an
evaluation. He said an individual legislator or the legislature
can take on the recommendation and see if it can work, but
another option is for the legislature to wait and not do
anything. He stated, "That's what I believe is valuable with
this." He said disagreement is expected.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said the legislature should "think
Arctic," because it is the only state in the country that is
Arctic. He stated that the legislature has had to learn about
the Arctic, and he thinks there was a shared fear among members
of the Northern Waters Task Force that "things were happening
around us without us being involved ... in the decision making."
The second audience to which the commission was making
recommendations was the executive branch. The commission was
also making recommendations to the federal government to work
with Alaska rather than "treating us like a junior partner." He
told Representative Keller that the issue was looking at all the
recommendations as a starting point but not agreeing with them
all. He said work would be done to ensure that the state's
Arctic policy works for everyone in the state.
8:24:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that he had heard it said, "If
you're not at the table, you're on the menu." He emphasized the
criticalness of Alaska's involvement with Arctic policy.
8:25:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON relayed that he had been criticized by
some of the comments that he made over the last few years and
explained he is skeptical of Alaska's federal partners.
However, he said he felt that the legislature wants to be
involved in Arctic decisions. He said he advocated kicking the
door in and inviting Alaska where it had not been invited
instead of letting others decide the future of Alaska. He said
he knew there was not a person present who did not agree that
Alaska must be involved. He said strategy has been combined to
aim for success, but "it's a living document," and this and
future legislatures must evolve with federal partners in terms
of Arctic policy.
8:27:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN directed attention to page 1, line 13, which read as
follows: "residents of the state recognize the risks that come
with climate variability". He asked if that was a politically
correct term for global warming.
8:27:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered there are three [terms]: global
warming, changing climate, and climate change. He said there
were two camps in the commission. One said the term should be
"changing climate," while the other said it should be "climate
change." He said as a co-chair he made a strategic decision
that "for every change in climate we're going to have a
reference to climate change, too."
CHAIR LYNN said there is hot debate over whether there is such a
thing as global warming or climate change. He recognized that
there have been changes in climate, both warmer and colder. He
said he does not want to get involved in that controversy,
because there have been climate changes since creation.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said a Senator on the commission remarked
that the climate has been changing for eons. He reiterated that
for every reference there would be an opposite reference.
8:29:21 AM
CHAIR LYNN indicated that the sponsor had mentioned the state's
long-time support for the Law of the Sea Treaty. He offered his
understanding that the legislature had passed legislation
regarding the treaty a few years ago. He asked, "Would that
document the term 'long-term'?"
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he does not know how many times
"we've passed a resolution," but said that "we made sure that it
... wasn't unanimous." He said there are several legislatures
that support not ratifying [the Law of the Sea Treaty]; however,
more support ratification than do not.
8:30:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he would not object to moving the
bill; however, he said he is of the minority that voted against
the Law of the Sea Treaty. He explained his vote was because of
the obligation it may put us under in the context of
international courts.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that "we recognize that." He
indicated that it may be some time before the Law of the Sea
Treaty is ratified. He said, the provision you talk about is
well chronicled. He said he thinks what has been learned over
the last couple years is that the U.S. Senate should take a
careful look at it. He stated his belief that the treaty
strengthens our sovereignty on the open sea, but said he fully
recognizes that the United Nations mining law provision is
"unfortunate." He said it would take 67 Senators to ratify the
Law of the Sea Treaty. He questioned whether Alaska's extending
continental shelf would come under attack from others, if "we"
become entrenched in not ratifying the treaty. He reemphasized
the importance of recognizing the support but also recognizing
it is not unanimous.
8:33:41 AM
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that President Ronald
Reagan had opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty, but one of the
President Bushes supported it, even though those two Presidents
were of the same political party.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said President Reagan was initially
opposed to the treaty, but when he got the amendments he
desired, he endorsed the treaty.
8:34:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the proposed legislation
does not emphasize the importance of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
He offered his understanding that the record would show that the
legislature had passed two resolutions supporting the treaty.
Further, he said he thinks the record would show that a strong
majority of the U.S. Senate has traditionally supported it. He
recognized that Senator Lisa Murkowski had led the way for that
support. He posited that it is important that "we recognize the
importance of that to the country and to the state of Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that the proposed
legislation does not address important environmental issues
sufficiently. One example he gave was regarding the significant
impact mankind has had on global warming, the effects of which
he said have been seen in Alaska and with the polar ice cap. He
said he would like to see the bill strengthened to have more
protection of the environment. He said he supports the work
that the AAPC has done thus far.
8:36:14 AM
CHAIR LYNN said the proposed legislation is about the AAPC, not
about what causes global warming. He added that he does not
think he would like to see the discussion focus on the global
warming debate.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined the fact that the proposed bill
language does not say more is, in itself, a policy statement.
8:37:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON responded first to issue of the Law of the
Sea Treaty, which he reiterated is well-chronicled. He opined
that a memorandum from the legislature to the U.S. Senate -
reflecting that although not unanimous, there has been support
for ratification - is sufficient. Regarding the environment, he
said there is a strong statement on page 3, line 5, which read
as follows:
(D) sustain current, and develop new,
approaches for responding to a changing climate, and
adapt to the challenges of coastal erosion, permafrost
melt, and ocean acidification;
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON indicated that the commission wanted to
emphasize the importance of adapting to survival. He said the
commission believes that in the codified portion of the proposed
legislation, it was succinct in listing those things that are
important to Arctic policy; however, it did not want the policy
to be "so heavy in any one place."
8:40:36 AM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Institute of the North;
Member, Alaska Arctic Policy Commission, expressed his
appreciation to the sponsor for bringing forward HB 1. He said
he thought the sponsor had described the balance that was struck
in focusing on the Arctic for the benefit of Alaskans. Further,
he remarked that the questions of the committee thus far had
highlighted the different elements of that balance. He said
this speaks to the careful negotiations within the commission.
MR. ANDREASSEN named four elements of the proposed legislation:
economic development, necessity for collaboration and
cooperation, healthy communities, and healthy environment. He
said all these elements together provide prosperity and success
for Alaska. Regarding the issue of climate change and changing
climate, he said the proposed legislation "has emphasized our
response to such a change and not attributed any causation to
it." He indicated that the commission focuses on how to prepare
for issues that will affect Alaskans. He said the
implementation plan provides options regarding climate change.
MR. ANDREASSEN stated that the proposed legislation highlights
the state's past support for and continued efforts around the
Law of the Sea Treaty. He said there was a lot of deliberation
regarding the treaty and notes from prior meetings show that the
state wants results as it moves forward in pushing the federal
government toward ratification. He said the final report
highlights some of those issues. He opined that the commission
felt strongly that Alaska's policy legislation should not be
solely about what the federal government should do, but focus
more on meeting the needs of Alaska. In the same way, the bill
is not only about environmental change or protection, but
highlights the state's guarding of both. He said the
recommendation plan states a number of recommendations for
supporting environmental protection and conservation access
issues.
8:44:19 AM
MR. ANDREASSEN emphasized that a "yes" vote on HB 1 would not
commit the person voting to the implementation plan, because the
plan is a "suite of options for future action." He stated, "To
the extent that you're interested in any of these issues -
singularly or as a whole - you're able to draw from the
implementation plan and move an issue forward." He said action
could occur from the legislature, from state agencies, and from
the business community within the next two years. He said
moving the proposed legislation forward would send a strong
signal that the State of Alaska is interested in taking a
leadership role in the Arctic and seeing changes benefit the
state, with state consultation at the forefront.
8:45:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN said there would be an upcoming sectional analysis.
8:45:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
said the issue of subsistence is addressed on page 4, line 12.
He said subsistence is one of the topics the commission decided
should be covered under Alaska's Arctic policy. He said, "It
recognizes the indigenous people, all our unique relationship to
the environment, and traditional ... way of life for food
security." He recollected, as a legislative staffer in 1987,
hearing people question in frustration why someone who is having
difficulty living in a certain part of the state doesn't just
move to Anchorage. He said he knows that "everyone at the table
is invested in their community." People have homes, businesses,
families, and a connection to the land in which they live. He
said the aforementioned language says more than its few lines
may suggest; it says a lot of things about all Alaskans and
emphasizes how important being in Alaska is.
8:48:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN said "we" don't want this or any other bill to damage
the indigenous people of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON indicated that that should also include
those who may not be indigenous, but were born in Alaska.
8:48:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the items in HB 1 were listed
in order of priority.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answer no, they are all "number ones."
8:49:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the value of the
culture and knowledge of Arctic people is recognized in the
proposed legislation. He expressed his desire to see Native
languages recognized, as well.
8:50:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he would not object, and he ventured
that would be an important addition.
8:51:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked, "Did the commission consider this
question?" Further, he questioned whether the commission was
open to "other things."
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered that during strategic planning,
everyone on the commission offered up many ideas that were
discussed, and then the commission narrowed down those ideas.
He recollected that the language of indigenous people was one of
the topics considered, but it got incorporated into "recognize
Arctic indigenous people's cultures".
8:52:49 AM
ROB EARL, Staff, Representative Bob Herron, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Herron, prime sponsor,
offered a sectional analysis on HB 1. He stated that in Section
1, there are eight findings and four statements of intent. He
highlighted the following: the third finding, which states that
Alaskans are Arctic experts; the sixth finding, which states
that respect for indigenous peoples is critical to understanding
the Arctic; the eighth finding, which states that Alaska should
create and maintain an official body to further develop Arctic
strategies and policies, which has already occurred; and the
third statement of intent, which states that the Arctic policy
would serve as a guide for the implementation policy.
8:54:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding Arctic policy of the state,
observed that the bill references the wishes of residents. He
asked if the commission had considered what would be in the best
interest of Alaska as "a continuing geographic and ecosystem
throughout the ages."
CHAIR LYNN said he assumed consideration had been given for
future generations.
8:56:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON stated that the intent of the Arctic
policy would be to help future generations and the environment.
He added, "Probably woven into that is we don't want to be
treated like a colony."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked about people who are not
residents of the state but have a real interest in what goes on
in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON ventured that the end result would be
favorable to all parties. He said Alaska is part of a nation
that would share in the benefits from Alaska's resources;
however, he reiterated that Alaska should not be used as a
colony where resources are extracted with nothing left behind.
He said the commission wants to see a healthy state that will
continue to flourish.
8:58:32 AM
MR. EARL continued with the sectional analysis. He directed
attention to Section 2, and reviewed that paragraph (1) speaks
to economically vibrant communities and a healthy environment,
which includes ensuring local benefits shown under subparagraph
(A). He highlighted subparagraph (C), regarding the attracting
of investments, and subparagraph [(F)], which speaks to
maintaining a strong fisheries industry. He pointed out
paragraph (3), which lists the enhancement of security in
[Alaska's Arctic region], including the increased safety of
marine transportation and the increased presence of the United
States Coast Guard, as shown under subparagraphs (B) and (D),
respectively. He returned to language to which the bill sponsor
had brought attention, regarding the recognition of Arctic
indigenous people's cultures and relationship to the
environment.
MR. EARL directed attention to language beginning on page 4,
line 26, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(b) It is important to the state, as it
relates to the Arctic, to support the strategic
recommendations of the implementation plan developed
by the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission and to
encourage consideration of recommendations developed
by the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission. Priority
lines of effort for the Arctic policy of the state
include
(1) promoting economic and resource
development;
(2) addressing the infrastructure and
response capacity gap in order to support the Arctic
region;
(3) supporting healthy communities; and
(4) supporting existing and fostering
new science and research that aligns with state
priorities for the Arctic.
MR. EARL directed attention to page 5, lines 6-10, which define
the meaning of Arctic, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
(c) In this section, "Arctic" means the area of
the state north of the Arctic Circle, north and west
of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and
Kuskokwim Rivers, all contiguous seas, including the
Arctic Ocean, and the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi
Seas, and the Aleutian Chain, except that, for the
purpose of international Arctic policy, "Arctic" means
the entirety of the state.
MR. EARL said after much discussion, the commission decided to
"align the boundary with the federal definition," which was
determined through federal legislation in 1984.
9:00:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked where that federal
definition was determined.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON offered his understanding that President
Eisenhower had been against "the entire state being a state."
He said President Eisenhower had felt that anything north and
west of Porcupine, Yukon, Kuskokwim - "PYK line" - could not
support itself, while anything south of that had already proved
it could. He said Bob Atwood, John Butrovich, and Walter Hickel
visited President Eisenhower to explain how his thought process
was flawed, and they and others convinced the President not to
bisect Alaska. Representative Herron said history has shown
that the Arctic Ocean and the Bering Sea are important to each
other. He concluded, "That's why the definition came - because
of that debate in the '50s."
9:03:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the bill sponsor's having
said that all the items in the bill have number one priority,
directed attention to page 4, line 29, which refers to "priority
lines of effort". He asked specifically if the four items
[language provided previously] are truly equal in priority.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON confirmed that is correct.
9:04:15 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
9:04:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he was ready to make a motion to move
HB 1 out of committee.
9:04:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, to
insert the following language on page 4, line 26: "document and
revitalize languages of Arctic indigenous peoples". He added
that it would be "in keeping with the theme of that section."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
He asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins exactly where the
proposed language would be added.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS reiterated page 4, line 26.
9:06:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the proposed Amendment 1 was
conceptual.
9:06:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked to hear from the bill sponsor how
Amendment 1 might fit.
9:07:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if the proposed amendment might have
been intended for page 4, lines 12-15.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained that he had thought the
proposed amendment could be "a new point"; however, he said he
could see the logic of moving it into the language on lines 12-
15.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON reiterated that after discussion, the
commission had incorporated Native languages into "indigenous
peoples' cultures"; however, he said if it was the will of the
committee to add reference specifically to Native languages,
then he would recommend it be added to [subparagraph (A)], on
page 4, lines 12-15. He reemphasized that the Arctic means the
entire state of Alaska; therefore, it should not be Arctic
indigenous languages, but should be indigenous languages of the
residents of Alaska.
9:09:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thought the language in Section
2, subsection (c), on page 5, lines 6-10, [text provided
previously], seemed to state the opposite of what the bill
sponsor just stated. He offered his understanding that
Amendment 1 was "not just international." He suggested a
conforming amendment may be necessary "to make sure that ...
that's covered within this definition."
9:10:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, in response to Representative
Gruenberg, confirmed that the proposed amendment was conceptual.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reviewed the concept of a conceptual
amendment.
9:11:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON suggest that Amendment 1 be withdrawn, and
he said he would sponsor an amendment on the House floor to
"take care of this."
9:12:41 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he was not sure this was germane to the proposed
legislation.
9:12:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER directed attention to language on page 2,
beginning on line 25, which he noted was a declaration of state
Arctic policy. He then directed attention to subsection (4), on
page 4, line [10], which states that the policy is to "value and
strengthen the resilience of communities and respect and
integrate the culture and knowledge of Arctic peoples",
following which he noted were five [subparagraphs]. He opined
that "it is germane in that section" but would not be elsewhere.
He expressed uncertainty over the use of the term "document" in
Amendment 1, because "using that term may push the edges of
this." He indicated that he had no problem with acknowledging
the value of indigenous languages in the context of the
appreciation of the culture and knowledge of the Arctic people.
9:14:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he would like to withdraw
Amendment 1, and he concurred with the bill sponsor's suggestion
regarding moving forward with HB 1. He expressed willingness to
work with the sponsor and any other interested legislators to
come up with something (indisc. -- overlapping voices).
CHAIR LYNN stated his intent had been to move HB 1 out of
committee, but said if it was the will of the committee, the
proposed legislation could be heard again at a future date.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that the
sponsor had talked about the potential for an amendment made on
the House floor.
9:14:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that [amending the bill] was the
work of the committee.
9:15:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred with Representative Keller
and indicated that although the House Rules Standing Committee,
as the next committee of referral, could amend the bill, the
House State Affairs Standing Committee was "really more set up
to do this."
CHAIR LYNN asked for the recommendation of the bill sponsor.
9:15:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that even though the definition of
"Arctic" on page 5, [lines 6-10], was accurate, he could not
emphasize enough that "you can't separate Alaska from the
Arctic." He said if the proposed bill was amended to recognize
Alaska indigenous languages, it should recognize all of them,
not just some of them. He said he would like the others on the
commission to consider such an amendment, but he recognized
there may be a need to hold the bill over for another hearing.
He reiterated that the bill already recognizes indigenous
peoples' cultures, and one of the foundations of culture is
language. In response to Chair Lynn, he said his recommendation
would be to withdraw Amendment 1.
9:18:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his motion to adopt
Amendment 1.
9:18:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reiterated he was ready to make a motion.
9:18:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Herron to clarify
what he thought about [the withdrawn] Amendment 1.
9:18:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON reiterated that he and his four other
colleagues should have a conversation with [Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins] to confirm or not confirm whether the term
"indigenous culture" includes indigenous language. He concurred
that committee work should not be done on the House floor. He
said he thought the Senate "should have that discussion, as
well." He said that is why he had asked for the amendment to be
withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested either the House State
Affairs Standing Committee address the language at its next
meeting, after the bill sponsor had had a chance to confer with
his colleagues, or that "we put the amendment in and you can
take it out."
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON responded on Representative Gruenberg's
second point that that is not how he likes to do business. He
reiterated that the commission believes that indigenous language
is included when speaking of culture.
9:20:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 1(EDA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 1(EDA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB0001 EDA Ver I.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 01a HB0001 Ver E - Original Version.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 02 HB1 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 03 HB 1 Summary of Changes from version E to HB 1 (EDA) vers (I)ndigo.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 04 HB 1 Sectional Analysis HB 1 (EDA) vers I.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 05 HB 1 Fiscal Note - HB001-DEC-SPAR-02-02-15.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 06 HB1 Fiscal Note - HB001-DEC-FC-02-02-15.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 07 HB1 Fiscal Note - HB001-DHSS-HSS-02-05-15.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 08 HB1 Fiscal Note - HB1-LEG-SESS-01-22-15.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 09 HB1 AAPC_final_report_lowres.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 10 HB1 AAPC_ImplementationPlan_lowres.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |
| 07a HB1 UPDATED Fiscal Note - HB001-DHSS-CO-02-07-15 #2.pdf |
HSTA 2/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 1 |