Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
04/25/2025 01:30 PM House 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 | |
| HB101 | |
| HB27 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 25, 2025
3:32 p.m.
3:32:03 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage, Co-Chair
Representative Jeremy Bynum
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Will Stapp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Andrew Gray, Sponsor; Lori Pickett, Self,
Juneau; Rachael Gunn, Staff, Representative Nellie Jimmie;
Kaci Schroeder, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law; Katie Giorgio, Staff,
Representative Genevieve Mina, Sponsor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Gerry Balluta, Self, Ketchikan; Rob Arnold, Self,
Ketchikan; Sharyl Yeisley, Self, Ketchikan; Brian Webb,
Self, Anchorage; Timothy Peterson, Physician, Juneau; Jamie
Morgan, Government Relations Regional Lead, American Heart
Association, Sacramento, California.
SUMMARY
HB 27 MEDICAL MAJOR EMERGENCIES
HB 27 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 101 CRIMES AGAINST MINORS
CSHB 101(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
four "do pass" recommendations, three "no
recommendation" recommendations, and two "amend"
recommendations and with two new zero notes from
the Department of Administration, one new zero
note from the Department of Law, two new zero
notes from the Department of Public Safety, one
new zero note from Judiciary, and two previously
published zero notes: FN1 (DFC) and FN5 (COR).
HB 123 TAXATION: VEHICLE RENTALS, SUBPOENAS
HB 123 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 101
"An Act relating to civil claims by victims of sexual
abuse to a minor; relating to homicide; relating to
assault in the third degree; relating to stalking;
relating to sexual abuse of a minor; relating to
enticement of a minor; relating to endangering the
welfare of a child; relating to indecent exposure;
relating to sending an explicit image of a minor;
relating to solicitation or production of an indecent
picture of a minor; relating to distribution of
indecent material to minors; relating to the testimony
of children in criminal proceedings; relating to
sentencing; and providing for an effective date."
3:33:14 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed the meeting agenda. He noted that
HB 101 was heard in a prior meeting [April 8, 2025]. He
asked the bill sponsor for a brief recap before moving to
public comments and amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW GRAY, SPONSOR, relayed that the bill
would raise the age of consent from 16 years of age to 18,
increasing protection to those 16 and 17 years of age. The
bill's inception had been formed by various sexual assault
and domestic violence organizations having identified the
low age of 16 as vulnerable to sexual predators because it
was difficult to charge predators. The legislation helped
prevent assault on 16 and 17 year old youths.
3:34:25 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
LORI PICKETT, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support for the
bill with prepared remarks:
My name is Lori Pickett, I'm a community member with
more than 35 years' experience working and
volunteering in the nonprofit and public sectors, and
I'm here today to show my strong support for House
Bill 101, a crucial step toward better protecting
Alaska's youth from sexual exploitation.
Critically, to protect our children still young enough
to be in high school, HB 101 proposes raising the age
of consent in Alaska from 16 to 18-putting us in line
with states like Arizona, Florida, Utah, Idaho, and
Tennessee. This isn't an extreme idea-it's a necessary
one. Many Alaskans are unaware that the current age of
consent is only 16. But predators know. And they
exploit that. They target 16- and 17-year-olds,
knowing the law is on their side and that it's
incredibly difficult to prove lack of consent in a "he
said, she said" case.
Importantly, HB 101 includes a close-in-age exemption.
That means normal, consensual relationships between
teenagers aren't criminalized-this bill is about
stopping exploitation, not policing healthy peer
relationships.
We are all painfully aware that Alaska has some of the
highest rates of sexual violence in the nation-and
much of the world. Our young people deserve more from
us. HB 101 is an essential and overdue step toward
protecting our children through their vulnerable teen
years and making it harder for adults to legally prey
on them.
If we're serious about tackling the crisis of sexual
violence in our state, we must act boldly. HB 101 is
common-sense, protective, and fair. Please, stand with
survivors. Stand with Alaska's youth. And support this
bill.
3:37:08 PM
GERRY BALLUTA, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference), called
in support of the bill. She was personally aware of a case
where a 16 year old was sexually exploited by a 23 year old
but the case was unable to be prosecuted due to current
statute. She believed that the current provisions in the
bill would have made the assault a cut and dry" case. She
implored the committee to support the bill on behalf of
other youth who were unable to make informed consent.
3:39:12 PM
ROB ARNOLD, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. He shared that his daughter was
15 and would soon be 16 and believed that she was still
incapable of informed consent under the situation. He
thought that there were many predators targeting youth. He
supported increasing the age to 18.
3:40:05 PM
SHARYL YEISLEY, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference),
testified in support of increasing the age of consent to
18. She believed there were numerous predators in
communities. She highlighted that a 16 year old could not
vote, drink, etc. She commented that they did not
understand how they could be preyed upon and groomed nor
understand the repercussions. She believed that increasing
the age to 18 would enable more prosecution of predators.
She shared that she had been victimized when under the age
of 18 and favored the legislation.
3:42:00 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
3:42:23 PM
Co-Chair Foster stated that two amendments had been
received. He asked to hear the amendments.
Representative Jimmie MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 34-
LS0451\N.1 (C. Radford, 4/11/25) (copy on file):
Page 6, lines 11 - 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual abuse of
a minor in the second degree if,
(1) being 17 years of age or older,
(A) the offender engages in sexual penetration with a
person who is
(i) 13, 14, or 15 years of age and at least four
years younger than the offender; or
(ii) 16 or 17 years of age and at least six years
younger than the offender; [,] or
(B) aids, induces, causes, or encourages a person who
is 13, 14, or 15 years of age and at least four years
younger than the offender to engage in sexual
penetration with another person;"
Page 7, lines 10- 14:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 9. AS l 1.41.438(a) is amended to read:
(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual abuse of
a minor in the third degree if being 17 years of age
or older, the offender engages in sexual contact with
a person who is
(1) 13, 14, or 15 years of age and at least four years
younger than the offender; or
(2) 16 or 17 years of age and at least six years
younger than the offender."
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Jimmie explained the amendment. She
communicated that under current law a 16 or 17 year old
could have a sexual relationship with someone much older;
even at 50 or 60 years of age. The amendment offered that
if one was 16 or 17, the oldest sexual partner could be 6
years older; a 17 year old could date someone up to 23 year
old, which allowed a close in age relationship yet set a
limit to protect teens from being taken advantage of by
older adults. She characterized it as a commonsense fix.
3:43:51 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked for comments from the sponsor.
Representative Gray reminded the committee that Brenda
Stanfill [Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)] had previously
testified to the committee and requested an expansion to 6
years, only for 16 and 17 year olds, to guarantee support
from all its member organizations. Ms. Stanfill relayed
that counselors and others subject to mandatory reporting
had to report consensual non-problematic relationships
under a 4 year "close in age" exemption and suggested the
extension. He viewed it as a friendly amendment.
3:45:06 PM
Representative Stapp stressed that he did not support the
amendment. He related that he had two daughters and did not
want his daughter when turned 16, having sex with a 22 year
old.
Co-Chair Foster asked for clarification whether the
amendment decreased the years from 6 to 4. Representative
Gray replied that it was the opposite. He added that the
age difference was less than 6 years, 5 years and 364 days
and the age was determined by the birth day. He pointed out
that the amendment was narrowed to only 16 and 17 year
olds.
Representative Bynum shared that he was in strong
opposition to the amendment. He was trying to understand
the rational for the change. He asked if the maker of the
amendment had considered adding a sunset date to the
amendment. He thought it would protect someone in a current
relationship with the age difference. He also suggested the
amendment be reduced from 6 to 5 years difference.
Representative Jimmie requested an at ease.
3:48:32 PM
AT EASE
3:50:22 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Jimmie asked to hear from her staff.
RACHAEL GUNN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NELLIE JIMMIE, replied
that they had looked into the idea and the director of
ANDVSA had told them it was the recommendation due to the
consensual non-problematic relationships. She provided an
example of a 17 year old in a relationship with a 22 year
old and both families were aware, yet it was still required
to be reported. The older partner could be at risk of
prosecution even with parental consent. The amendment freed
mandatory reporters from having to report healthy
consensual relationships.
Representative Galvin asked about the expansion of the age.
She provided an example of a 16 year old or 17 year old who
may be in a university and understood the situation. She
asked for context from what other states had done.
Representative Gray answered that Utah had a 10 year close
in age exemption and Florida had a 7 year extension. He
indicated that he negotiated the age to 6 from other
options being proposed. He noted that there were other
states with 4 but he felt 6 years was a good compromise.
3:53:41 PM
Representative Johnson did not support the amendment due to
the difference between a 16 year old and a 22 year old. She
felt that a 22 year old was more mature and sophisticated.
3:54:40 PM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Jimmie, Galvin, Schrage, Josephson,
Foster
OPPOSED: Stapp, Bynum, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
3:55:48 PM
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 34-LS0451
(C. Radford, 4/24/25) (copy on file):
Page 6, line 5, following "age":
Insert "and at least two years younger than the
offender"
Page 6, line 29, following "age":
Insert "and at least two years younger than the
offender"
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Josephson explained the amendment. He pointed to
page 6, lines 5 and 29 of the bill where the first
reference involved "penetration" and the latter "contact."
He reported that an existing law had a two year separation
between the 19 year old and someone under 16 under the
charges of Sexual Abuse of a Minor 1 [penetration] and
Sexual Abuse of a Minor 2 [contact] that applied to someone
in a position of authority over the victim and the offender
resided in the same household. He cited subsection (B) on
line 8 and read:
(B) the offender occupies a position of authority in
relation to the victim
Co-Chair Josephson wanted to retain the two year separation
in that situation. He provided an example of a 19 year old
who is a boss of a 17 year old at a fast food restaurant
that were intimate and merely had contact like "petting
over clothing. He related that the boss could be indicted
and subject to prosecution. The amendment only applied to a
two year difference and not 6, because he did not want to
criminalize a 19 year old that cared for or desired a 17
year old. He emphasized that it was very difficult to
establish cutoffs, but the law demanded it. The amendment
retained the two year difference in the current law and the
bill bumped up the age to 18. However, the defendant could
be aged 20.
3:59:25 PM
Representative Gray indicated that he was neutral on the
amendment. He expanded that he thought that a 19 year old
could use their position of authority and threaten a
younger worker if she did not comply with sexual
engagement. He deduced that someone in authority with only
two years difference was extraordinarily rare and the case
would almost never happen. He reiterated that he was
neutral on the amendment.
Representative Stapp thought the second part of the
amendment made sense. He was concerned about the first part
and cited page 6, line 6 and read:
(A) the victim at the time of the offense is residing
in the same 7 household as the offender and the
offender has authority over the victim;
Representative Stapp asked if the amendment could be
interpreted as not being a crime if the child was 16 and an
uncle (perpetrator) lived in the house rather than someone
age 18. Co-Chair Josephson replied that currently the law
included the two year rule, which the amendment maintained.
He thought that it begged the question if the two year rule
was good, but it was a status quo amendment. He offered
that he was comfortable with the amendment because the
relationship was consensual. He expounded that much case
law existed around what "authority" meant. He believed the
amendment was important and provided an example of a lead
camp counselor who was 18.5 years old, and his assistant
was 17.5 years of age, which met the elements of the crime.
He added that if there was penetration it became an
unclassified felony and was an indictable offense, which
concerned him.
4:03:05 PM
Representative Galvin appreciated the conversation. She had
four children and could not help but to lean on the
conservative side of the topic. She recalled from testimony
that predators were acutely aware of the laws. She
discerned that predators knew who could consent and who
could not. She thought that someone at age 16, if there was
any adult acting in an authoritarian capacity, the 16 year
old "behaved differently and was vulnerable. She wanted to
send the right message to any predators tracking the law.
Co-Chair Josephson argued that the reason he wanted members
to be "comfortable" with the amendment was it mostly
conformed with current law. He reiterated that existing
statute spoke to someone in authority in the workplace or
household. He was merely retaining the 2 year provision. He
recounted that the committee voted for a relationship
difference of 6 years in the prior amendment. The amendment
maintained two years because of the power differential
involved. He acknowledged that there were nefarious actors
but there were also people in love, and they did not know
any better.
4:06:47 PM
AT EASE
4:09:42 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gray clarified that currently in statute if
a 16 year old was working at Subway and her supervisor co-
worker was 18.5 years old they could have a consensual
sexual relationship, it was currently legal. He recounted
that the bill moved the age to 18. Currently, a 16.5 year
old could have consensual sexual relations with a
supervisor who was 18, however under the bill she could
not. He explained that the amendment would preserve the
very tight less than two year" provision. He reiterated
that it was currently allowed, and it was a logical
amendment to the bill.
Representative Hannan was a reluctant yes on the first
amendment, because she did not want to expand the close in
age measure. Therefore, she deferred to the concerns
expressed by the domestic violence staff and others that
were concerned that people would not seek help because they
were aware that mandatory reporters would report the
relationship. She indicated that the examples often cited
in the second amendment happened in the workplace. She
recounted from personal experience as a prior teacher when
the predator was the assistant coach of a team, which was a
position of authority. She provided an example of a
volleyball assistant coach at Kodiak Highschool charged
with multiple sexual abuse charges. She recalled that it
was a recent case that happened four years ago. She
asserted that she did not want to extend the two year
window. She thought a position of authority created a
bright line" that prohibited sexual relations until all
involved were adults. She reiterated why she supported the
first amendment. However, she did not want to perpetuate
the idea that 16 and 17 year olds should be having sex with
adults even if they were only 2 years older. She believed
that the "world view" between a 19 year old and a 17 year
old was "very different" and a "magical bright line"
existed on the day one turns 18 "where the decisions were
different and invested with them." She did not support the
amendment.
4:13:24 PM
Co-Chair Josephson relayed some of the recent committee
discussion regarding his amendment that proved his
perspective. He cited an American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) brief that stated often the judge had no discretion
without mitigators, which translated to an 8.5 year
sentence. He was attempting to keep the bill "reasonable"
and reminded Representative Hannan that the amendment did
not extend the provision but maintained the current law of
2 years.
Representative Stapp communicated that Co-Chair Josephson
changed his mind on his earlier comments. He explained his
reasoning that he could not comprehend how the shift
manager of a fast food restaurant would ever know that they
would be an unclassified felon, especially in light of the
6 year extension in Amendment 2. He did not like the
amendment, but he did not want someone to be a felon for
the rest of their life if the bill passed and someone was
in an established relationship, which became illegal.
4:16:43 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that the Department of Law (DOL) was
in the room for questions.
Representative Galvin wanted to hear from the department.
She noted that the House Finance Committee was not a policy
committee, but she wanted to know how often the scenario
happened and how the department viewed the amendment.
KACI SCHROEDER, SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, looked at the amendment as one
of the better ways to preserve the two year age difference.
She emphasized that it was a policy call for the committee
to decide where to draw the line, but she maintained that
DOL did not identify any legal issues with the amendment.
She answered that she did not have statistics on how often
the close in age scenario happened, but she was aware that
it did. She elaborated that in close in age cases, the
department looked at the elements of the case and whether
it could prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. In
addition, the case was examined in the "interest of
justice," whether pursuing the case was the right thing to
do for all involved.
Representative Galvin commented that the committee heard an
example from Representative Hannan and several other
scenarios. She reasoned that the committee wanted to
establish a clear sense of the law." She was concerned
over the penalty and understood how serious changing the
law was and wanted to make an "appropriate" and informed
change.
4:20:02 PM
Ms. Schroeder answered that the first part of the amendment
applied to sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree
making it an unclassified felony that carried a sentence of
20 to 30 years and a lifetime registration as a sex
offender. She delineated that the second part of amendment
was a class B felony sex offense subject to a term of 5 to
15 years for a first time felon and a maximum of 99 years.
4:20:54 PM
Representative Stapp WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Hannan OBJECTED.
Representative Hannan spoke to her objection. She discussed
two related cases she was aware of from personal experience
of sexual relations between a senior and freshmen that both
led to prosecution. She understood normal teenage behavior,
but the did not want to diminish the ideal of statutory
rape and carving out protections for adults. Her major
concern was protecting minors and 18 year olds needed to be
aware that there were restrictions on behavior; especially
in instances of camps, coaching, etc.
4:23:05 PM
AT EASE
4:26:44 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Jimmie provided an example of two 17 year
olds in a relationship and one child turned 18 first and
became an assistant sports coach and the relationship was
reported, she wondered whether it would be a classified
felony. Ms. Schroeder answered that if the relationship
involved sexual penetration, it would be an unclassified
sex felony and if it involved sexual contact, it would be a
class B sex felony.
Co-Chair Josephson provided wrap up. He contended that the
bill was "tough." He remarked that he had respect for
Representative Hannan's viewpoint, but he maintained that
the amendment was not watering down anything; it was a
conforming amendment. He referred to the stepfather
scenario and pointed out that all ages would be prohibited
from sexual relations with their stepchildren. He asked for
support.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Jimmie, Galvin, Stapp, Josephson, Schrage, Foster
OPPOSED: Johnson, Bynum, Hannan
The MOTION PASSED (6/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
4:29:38 PM
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to REPORT CSHB 101(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Bynum objected. He strongly supported the
bill but was opposed to the recent amendments. He believed
that the bill was a massive improvement to current law. He
WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Johnson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Galvin, Stapp, Bynum, Jimmie, Josephson,
Schrage, Foster
OPPOSED: Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (8/1).
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 101(FIN) was
REPORTED out of committee with four "do pass"
recommendations, three "no recommendation" recommendations,
and two "amend" recommendations and with two new zero notes
from the Department of Administration, one new zero note
from the Department of Law, two new zero notes from the
Department of Public Safety, one new zero note from
Judiciary, and two previously published zero notes: FN1
(DFC) and FN5 (COR).
Representative Gray thanked the committee for hearing the
bill.
HOUSE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to medical care for major
emergencies."
4:32:57 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked the sponsor to provide a brief recap
of the bill.
KATIE GIORGIO, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GENEVIEVE MINA,
SPONSOR, provided an overview of the bill. She summarized
that HB 27 provided a coordinated statewide system of care
for Alaskans experiencing heart attacks and strokes. The
state had a trauma system of care for many years centered
in the Department of Health (DOH), which included training,
coordination, adoption of protocols, a trauma center
registry system with hospitals that specified different
levels of care, and robust data collection. The legislation
strove to replicate the trauma system of care to heart
attack and stroke emergencies. The program would be housed
within DOH. She added that a Guardian Flight letter of
support was recently added to the member's bill files (copy
on file).
4:35:15 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
BRIAN WEBB, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in support of the bill. He shared that he was a paramedic
and critical care flight paramedic for 50 years. He relayed
that since the passage of HB 168 [Trauma Care Centers/Fund,
Chapter 98 SLA 10, 06/21/2010] in 2010, which established
trauma centers and a trauma system of care, the state was
collecting and using important trauma related data to
identify "hot spots", allocate additional resources, and
develop a design pattern to enact preventative measures. He
elaborated that the data allowed Alaska EMS to target
resources, training protocols, and equipment acquisition
towards trauma care. He emphasized that HB 127 would
accomplish the same outcome for medical emergencies. The
same type of volunteer hospital facility designation for
Level 1 through Level 5 trauma centers that allowed for
inspections and facilitated facility recertifications would
be established for heart attack and stroke medical
emergencies. The bill allowed EMS to determine where to
deliver the patients to the most appropriate facility and
help decrease mortality. He added that the bill would
result in cost savings, better patient outcomes, and a
reduction in permanent disability. He asked for support.
4:38:12 PM
TIMOTHY PETERSON, PHYSICIAN, JUNEAU (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. He shared that he was calling
on behalf of his position as Medical Director, Southeast
Region EMS, which assisted 27 different agencies
transporting patients. He was concerned about patient
safety and outcomes. He spoke about a recent regional
conference that included all the medical directors in
Southeast Alaska, medical directors from Airlift Northwest,
Guardian Flight, LifeMed, Inc., and medical representatives
from Carnival Cruise Lines. The discussion centered on the
geography and remoteness of Southeast Alaska. The bill's
inception was born out of the lack of an Emergency Medical
System like the Trauma Care System. He emphasized the lack
of data analysis to help with the transport decisions of
life threatening medical emergencies where time was
critically important to outcomes. He added that training
and equipment were important to assist in getting the
patient to the right facility.
Representative Hannan asked for confirmation that he was in
support of the bill. Dr. Peterson answered in the
affirmative. Representative Hannan thanked him for his
work.
4:41:53 PM
JAMIE MORGAN, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS REGIONAL LEAD, AMERICAN
HEART ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA (via
teleconference), testified in favor of the bill. She
believed that the bill would ensure timely and effective
treatment for heart attack and stroke medical emergencies.
She relayed that the American Heart Association (AHA)
advocated for quality systems of care based on nationally
recognized standards for heart attack and stroke patients.
She emphasized that the right care at the right time at the
right facility was essential for time sensitive emergencies
like strokes. She delineated that approximately 795
thousand people each year experienced a stroke in the
United States (U.S.). A care system that reduced stroke
related deaths by 2 to 3 percent saved 20 thousand lives.
The care systems improved patient outcomes and were cost
effective. She concluded that establishing a system of
heart attack and stroke care improved outcomes and saved
lives.
4:43:33 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline of April 29 at
5:00 pm
HB 27 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
4:45:03 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 101 Amendments 1-2 042425.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 101 |
| HB 27 -- GUARDIAN FLIGHT Letter of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 27 |