02/11/2014 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB212 | |
| HJR21 | |
| HB286 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 11, 2014
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Pete Higgins
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lora Reinbold
Representative Dan Saddler
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 212
"An Act relating to an exemption from driver licensing
requirements for spouses of members of the armed forces of the
United States."
- MOVED HB 212 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Opposing cuts to retirement benefits owed to members of the
armed services of the United States; and urging the United
States Congress to approve legislation allowing members of the
armed services of the United States to receive promised
retirement benefits.
- MOVED HJR 21 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 286
"An Act relating to the Teachers' Retirement System, the
Judicial Retirement System, and the Public Employees' Retirement
System for qualified military service; relating to the
definition of 'veteran' for purposes of housing, eligibility for
veterans' loans, and preferences in state employment hiring; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 212
SHORT TITLE: DRIVER'S LICENSING EXEMPTION: MILITARY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ISAACSON, HUGHES, LEDOUX
01/21/14 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/14
01/21/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/14 (H) MLV, STA
02/04/14 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/04/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/14 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/11/14 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 21
SHORT TITLE: MILITARY RETIRMENT BENEFITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN
01/21/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/14 (H) MLV
02/11/14 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 286
SHORT TITLE: VETS' RETIREMENT/LOANS/HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/29/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/29/14 (H) MLV, L&C
02/11/14 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG ISAACSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 212, spoke in
support of the bill as a prime joint sponsor.
RACHEL WITTY, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
212.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HJR 21 as the prime sponsor.
CURTIS THAYER, Commissioner
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 286 on behalf of House Rules
Committee by request of the governor and answered questions.
KATHY LEA, Deputy Director
Central Office
Division of Retirement and Benefits
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
286.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:20 PM
CO-CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.
Representatives Foster, Gruenberg, Higgins, Hughes, and LeDoux
were present at the call to order.
[At the call to order, the date of the meeting was misstated as
March 12.]
HB 212-DRIVER'S LICENSING EXEMPTION: MILITARY
1:06:31 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 212, "An Act relating to an exemption from
driver licensing requirements for spouses of members of the
armed forces of the United States."
1:06:49 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:06 p.m. to 1:08 p.m.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX recalled that public testimony on HB 212 was
closed at the meeting of 2/4/14.
1:09:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG ISAACSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as a prime joint sponsor, informed the committee HB 212 is
another way for Alaska to support military members who are
temporary residents of the state. Alaska provides a [driver's
license] benefit to military members who wish to retain
residency in their home state, and the bill is simply asking for
the same benefit so a military member's spouse over the age of
18 can retain his/her driver's license issued by their home
state. To address a concern expressed by some, he emphasized
that in the bill the meaning of "spouse" is the same as the
meaning currently recognized by state law. Representative
Isaacson urged for HB 212 to be passed from committee.
1:11:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt [Amendment 1], labeled
28-LS0861\N.1, Strasbaugh, 2/11/14, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "spouses":
Insert "or same-sex partners"
Page 2, line 1, following "spouse" in both places:
Insert "or same-sex partner"
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "or spouse"
Insert "or the member's spouse or same-sex
partner"
Page 2, line 4, following "jurisdiction;":
Insert "to claim to an exemption under this
paragraph, a member's same-sex partner shall submit an
application for an exemption and, with the application
for exemption, two affidavits, one from the same-sex
partner and one from the member, stating that the
member and the same-sex partner
(A) are at least 18 years of age and are
each competent to enter into a contract;
(B) have been in an exclusive, committed,
and intimate relationship with each other for the last
12 consecutive months and intend to continue that
relationship indefinitely;
(C) have maintained a household together at
a common primary residence for the last 12 consecutive
months and intend to maintain a household together
indefinitely;
(D) consider themselves to be members of
each other's immediate family;
(E) are not related to each other to a
degree of closeness that would preclude them from
marrying each other in this state if they were of the
opposite sex;
(F) are not legally married to another
person;
(G) have not executed an affidavit
affirming same-sex partner status with another person
within the last 12 months;
(H) are each other's sole domestic partner
and each is responsible for the welfare of the other;
and
(I) share financial obligations, including
joint responsibility for basic living expenses and
health care costs;"
1:11:28 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the bill grants a state
benefit and therefore is governed by the Alaska Supreme Court
case Alaska CLU v. State of Alaska, (ACLU) decided on 10/28/05.
Commonly known as ACLU, the aforementioned case governs the
question of benefits given to couples who cannot legally marry
in Alaska because of Alaska's constitutional amendment that
defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Furthermore, there is also a recent Alaska Superior Court
decision and order in Julie Schmidt et. al, v. The State of
Alaska and Municipality of Anchorage (Schmidt case) dated
9/19/11, which has now been argued before the Alaska Supreme
Court and is awaiting decision. The holding in both cases is
that programs offering valuable benefits to employees' spouses,
and that are not offered to unmarried domestic partners, violate
equal protection under the Alaska State Constitution.
Representative Gruenberg said he offered the amendment because
of his concern about the constitutionality of the bill as it is
written, as well as the policy issues involved. Amendment 1 is
offered on behalf of those who believe the equal protection
clause protects "in this kind of a situation." He said
Amendment 1 was drafted specifically following the ACLU case to
assure the legislation meets the requirement of the Constitution
of the United States, but does not violate the Alaska State
Constitution. Representative Gruenberg urged for the adoption
of Amendment 1.
1:14:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES referred to previous testimony given at a
prior meeting.
[No specific reference was given as to the date of said meeting
or the identity of the testifier.]
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX said she was unsure about previous testimony on
this matter as the amendment was not before the committee until
now.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER recalled there was testimony from an individual.
1:16:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said the aforementioned testifier
indicated there was a problem, and remarked, "I just wanted to
make it clear that, so that we're all aware, that that person
was representing themselves and was not representing the
Department of Law."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he did not hear, and had not
reviewed, "that person's testimony."
1:17:17 PM
RACHEL WITTY, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law,
in response to Representative Gruenberg, said she did not have a
copy of Amendment 1, but she had reviewed the bill. In further
response to Representative Gruenberg, she opined that the bill
has a potential constitutional issue depending on how the Alaska
Supreme Court were to rule in the Schmidt case; however, the
state has appealed the Alaska Superior Court holding on the
grounds that the superior court judge was incorrect in bringing
in the 2005 ACLU case because it dealt with employment benefits.
The 2005 case holding made clear that the decision only applied
to employment benefits. The Schmidt case dealt with property
tax exemption, and the state argued that married people hold
property differently than unmarried people, whether they are
same-sex couples, relatives, or others. The state asked the
state supreme court to limit the superior court's holding and
not extend the first ACLU decision to the property tax case.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that Ms. Witty review the
ACLU case: the facts and legal reasoning of the case, and the
holding of the state supreme court.
1:19:05 PM
MS. WITTY relayed the first ACLU case in 2005 was brought by
employees of the state and the Municipality of Anchorage,
challenging "the spousal limitation in the state benefits
program," which did not afford them the same retirement and
health benefits as the spouses of state employees. The Alaska
Supreme Court found that because individuals in same-sex
relationships could not get married due to the constitutional
ban on gay marriage in Alaska, there was an equal protection
violation. As the state was in a unique position as employer,
and the employees were entitled to the fruits of their
employment, the state had an obligation to treat its employees
equally and extend the same benefits to same-sex partners.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the facts, reasoning, and
decision of the superior court judge in the Schmidt case.
MS. WITTY said the Schmidt case involved challenges by same-sex
property owners in the Municipality of Anchorage to the property
tax exemption statute giving exemptions to senior citizens and
disabled veterans. There is also a provision in the statute for
widows and widowers that was not challenged by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs argued that they were not given the full value of
the exemption but were treated as roommates, whereas married
couples receive the full exemption instead of half. The
superior court judge held - applying the ACLU decision in 2005
to the Schmidt case - that any time there was the use of the
word spouse in a statute or regulation, there was an equal
protection violation. In response to Representative Gruenberg,
Ms. Witty said she represented the state before the superior
court and assisted with the appeal, but did not argue the case
before the Alaska Supreme Court.
1:22:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "As I understand it, no court in
this state has adopted the state's reasoning on this issue. The
only two cases are the cases we have discussed, correct?"
1:22:34 PM
MS. WITTY was unaware of any other cases before courts in Alaska
dealing with this issue. In further response to Representative
Gruenberg, she agreed that both cases are based upon the state
constitution and not the federal constitution equal protection
clause.
1:23:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS asked Ms. Witty whether HB 212, as
written, legally meets the standards of the state constitution.
MS. WITTY stated that the bill does not clearly violate equal
protection under the ruling in 2005 as it currently stands;
however, if the state supreme court "widens that holding to
extend to other spousal classifications, then there might be an
equal protection issue." In further response to Representative
Higgins, she advised that a "wait and see approach" would not be
unreasonable because a number of laws would need to be changed,
perhaps even by regulation.
1:25:18 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX expressed her preference for a wait and see
approach due to the pending court cases. She maintained her
objection to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that Ms. Witty limited her
answer to Representative Higgins to the state supreme court
decision in the ACLU case. He asked for the precedential effect
that can be set by the decision of the superior court in the
Schmidt case; although not binding on the Alaska Supreme Court,
this decision should be important to the legislature.
1:27:31 PM
MS. WITTY said:
Although the judge in the Schmidt case did use quite
expansive language to describe the holding and the use
of the word spouse, or widow, and widower, the facts
of that case were limited to a property tax exemption
challenge and whether the state had a reasonable basis
for the classification made in that statute. And so,
I think with any statute, you would have to look at
the circumstances of that particular statute and
whether or not there's a reasonable basis for the
classification in that statute.
1:28:13 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that superior court cases are not
considered precedent by the state supreme court; in fact, in
some courtrooms, superior court cases are not to be cited as
precedent.
MS. WITTY affirmed that superior court cases are not binding on
the state supreme court, or on the legislature, as it is dealing
with different statutes. In further response to Co-Chair
LeDoux, she agreed the case is not binding on another superior
court, and has no precedential value.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the case is precedent, but
is not binding precedence because precedence means "there is a
holding and reasoning, that either the court or the legislature
may look to ...."
MS. WITTY stated it is not precedential for the legislature in
this case.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to the authority for Ms.
Witty's last statement because he had never heard whether a
superior court decision is, or is not, precedent for the
legislature to use. He said he would research that matter.
Returning to the Schmidt case, Representative Gruenberg pointed
out that the Schmidt case was decided 9/16/11, which is over two
years ago, and the case was argued in the state supreme court
almost one and one/half years ago. He asked when a decision is
expected.
MS. WITTY was unsure if there is a requirement for a certain
date.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX suggested that if an opinion affirming the
Schmidt case is issued, the bill could still be under
consideration in the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES commented that without binding precedent,
and with a pending court case, she would not support the
amendment.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER said he would support the amendment because the
duty of the legislature is to direct good public policy.
1:33:36 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and
Foster voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Higgins,
Hughes, and LeDoux voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
failed by a vote of 2-3.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports the bill; it just
happened to be a piece of legislation that presented the issue
he addressed in the proposed amendment.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER stated his support for the bill.
1:35:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER moved to report HB 212 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Without objection, HB 212 was moved from the House Special
Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
1:36:23 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:36 p.m. to 1:39 p.m.
HJR 21-MILITARY RETIRMENT BENEFITS
1:39:18 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21, Opposing cuts to retirement
benefits owed to members of the armed services of the United
States; and urging the United States Congress to approve
legislation allowing members of the armed services of the United
States to receive promised retirement benefits.
1:39:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HJR 21. He paraphrased from a prepared
statement as follows:
I believe our troops expect an attack on a military
battlefield. Our troops, active and retired,
shouldn't have to suffer an attack by Congress on our
military. I'm sorry to say that Congress has enacted
legislation - signed by the President - that will cut
the cost of the living allowances - or COLA - to
military retirees, retirees that include wounded
veterans and disabled veterans. It was a bipartisan
outrage in the name of compromise. ... Everybody knows
there is no shortage of places where Congress should,
and could, cut spending. There is simply no excuse
for our government to breaking the de facto contract
between the USA and our wonderful warriors. So that's
why I sponsored this joint house resolution ....
1:42:16 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony on HJR 21. There being
no one who wished to testify, public testimony was closed.
1:42:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS related his personal experience is that
the government has whittled down benefits to military members
and retirees, especially medical benefits. The government
spends money on frivolous issues and he agreed that the contract
with those who serve should be honored.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES noticed [from supporting documents found
in the committee packet] the amount of savings to [the
government] is $6 billion, but the impact on individuals is
between $70,000 and $80,000. She agreed with the previous
speaker and expressed her support for the resolution.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER added that military members do not make high
wages, and he expressed his support for the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his support and thanked all
those who have served in the military.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX expressed her support for the resolution.
1:46:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES declared a conflict of interest.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the record. He pointed
out - according to [supporting documents found in the committee
packet] - that the term "veteran" in the resolution is limited
to those who have been disabled or who have served more than 20
years, thus for those who served less, there is no conflict. He
asked the sponsor for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said [HJR 21] is for retirees and those with
a medical retirement.
1:47:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER moved to report HJR 21 out of committee with
[individual] recommendations and no attached fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HJR 21 was reported from the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
1:48:01 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:48 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
HB 286-VETS' RETIREMENT/LOANS/HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT
1:50:00 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 286, "An Act relating to the Teachers'
Retirement System, the Judicial Retirement System, and the
Public Employees' Retirement System for qualified military
service; relating to the definition of 'veteran' for purposes of
housing, eligibility for veterans' loans, and preferences in
state employment hiring; and providing for an effective date."
1:50:34 PM
CURTIS THAYER, Commissioner, Department of Administration (DOA),
introduced HB 286 on behalf of the House Rules Committee by
request of the governor. Commissioner Thayer informed the
committee that the governor's administration has recently found
items in statute that are not current. For example, there are
over 64,000 veterans living in Alaska and 25,000 military
members and their families "call Alaska home." Under Alaska
law, veterans are eligible for special loan, housing, and
employment preferences; however, current statutory language
limits preferences to veterans of foreign wars up to and
including the Vietnam War. The state is currently unable to
extend these preferences to veterans of recent conflicts. In
recognition of our service men and women, the bill amends the
preference eligibility statutes by updating the periods of
service to include the veterans of the most recent wars and
conflicts and extending eligibility for veterans' preferences to
veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, and veterans who have served
under Operation Iraqi Freedom and includes provisions should
future conflicts arise. The bill also ensures military families
receive full survivor benefits for fallen soldiers implemented
under the Heroes Earning Assistance and Relief Tax Act (HEART
Act) enacted by Congress in 2008. The HEART Act also addresses
differential wage payments - compensation for service members
that they would have received from the employer during the
service member's period of active duty had the employee been
called up to active duty. Commissioner Thayer further explained
that when a state employee reservist is called to active duty
and is killed in action, their employment with the state will
revert back to the day before they died, thus they would receive
the same death benefit as a current state employee, and vesting,
if any, would be credited to them for their families. Also,
there is a provision for the definition of veteran for the
purposes of Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). Attached
to HB 286 is a zero fiscal note. Commissioner Thayer observed
that the state has been very lucky that no reservists that have
been called for active duty have been killed; however, the
administration seeks to bring the state law up to date with
federal law.
1:54:07 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony on HB 286.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised the bill extends private
benefits, but not governmental benefits.
COMMISSIONER THAYER responded that the bill extends state
benefits, such as state death benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why there is no fiscal note to
reflect that.
1:55:11 PM
KATHY LEA, Deputy Director, Central Office, Division of
Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration, responded
that her division requested its plan actuary to value the effect
of the bill on the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS),
the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), and the Judicial
Retirement System (JRS) [plan]. The actuary determined that
since there have been no such deaths since [2009], the bill has
a de minimis effect on the plan, thus there is a zero fiscal
note. In further response to Representative Gruenberg, she said
the state does not expect no one will be affected, but it does
not expect to see large numbers affected, that would influence
the liabilities of the plan.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he and especially the House
Special Committee on Military and Veteran's Affairs need to know
an estimate on how many would be affected.
COMMISSIONER THAYER pointed out, thankfully, in six years no one
has been killed under these circumstances. In further response
to Representative Gruenberg, he agreed that the bill is
prophylactic because the federal law changed in 2008, and the
state is currently out of compliance. He said, "This is for
audit purposes ... we're expecting a 2015 audit."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether the state will
face potential sanctions for being out of compliance.
MS. LEA said at this point her division does not anticipate any
sanctions from the federal government; if the bill passes as
anticipated, the state will be "in good qualification status" in
a timely manner. In further response to Representative
Gruenberg, she deferred the question of potential sanctions to
tax counsel, but added her understanding is that the division
will not face sanctions if the bill is passed prior to
qualification time.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated his question: "Any idea, if
we don't pass it, what we might face?"
2:00:03 PM
MS. LEA acknowledged that if the bill is not passed, when the
state seeks qualifications of PERS, TRS, and JRS, the most dire
consequence would be the loss of tax qualification status and,
at the least, the state could face fines.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that the division forward to
him any further information on this matter.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked for confirmation that the definition
of "employer" referred to in the bill is the State of Alaska.
COMMISSIONER THAYER said correct. The bill applies to State of
Alaska employees, retirees, and political subdivisions.
2:02:10 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, after ascertaining that no members of the
public wished to testify, closed public testimony.
2:02:35 PM
HB 286 was held over.
2:02:54 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 2:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 021 Hearing Request.doc |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR 021 Sponsor Statement.doc |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR 021 Supporting Documents-Article FOX BUSINESS NEWS.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR 021 Supporting Documents-Article MILITARY TIMES.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR 021 ver U.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| 1.28.14 Chenault Transmittal Letter - Veterans.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB 286 - VeteransBill_Sectional.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB 286 - Hearing Request.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB286-VeteransBill_TalkingPointsExt.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB286-DCCED-DED-01-17-14.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB286-DOA-DOP-01-20-14.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB286-DOA-DRB-01-20-14.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB286-DOR-AHFC-1-21-14.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB0286A.PDF |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| fiscalNote.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |
| HB 212 Sectional.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |
| HB 212 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |
| HB 212 Supporting Document _ Cathy Randolph_ Jan. 27th 2014.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |
| HB 212 Supporting Document _ Kim Nahom_ Jan. 27th 2014.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |
| HB 212 Supporting Document _ Tanya Kelly_ Feb. 4th 2014.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |
| HB 212 Supporting Document _Shannon and Dave Sieve_ Jan. 31st 2014.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |
| HB0212A.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |
| HB212 list of states.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |
| MSRRA 2-4-2014--signed.pdf |
HMLV 2/11/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |