Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519

04/12/2010 01:30 PM House FINANCE

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
--Recessed to Call of Chair to 4/13/10--
Moved HCS CSSB 110(FIN) Out of Committee
Moved CSHB 324(FIN) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 283(FIN) Out of Committee
<Bill Held Over from 8:00 Meeting>
Moved CSHB 126(FIN) Out of Committee
<Bill Held Over from 8:00 Meeting>
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 110(FIN)                                                                                               
     "An Act relating to the preservation of evidence and                                                                       
     to the DNA identification system."                                                                                         
1:46:55 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HOLLIS  FRENCH,  SPONSOR,   discussed  SB  110.  He                                                                    
explained  that  the  proposed  legislation  addresses  post                                                                    
conviction   Deoxyribonucleic   Acid   (DNA)   testing.   He                                                                    
commended his  Chief of staff,  Cindy Smith who  initiated a                                                                    
series  of events  allowing for  provisions that  move crime                                                                    
bills through  the process. The  governor introduced  a bill                                                                    
this  year  with  similar  issues  in  respect  to  evidence                                                                    
preservation. The  DNA provisions  from the  governor's bill                                                                    
are inserted into  SB 110. He highlighted Section  3, Page 3                                                                    
regarding  evidence  preservation.  In the  past  rural  law                                                                    
enforcement agencies were tasked  with storing large amounts                                                                    
of  evidence. With  SB 110,  an  agency is  not required  to                                                                    
preserve physical  evidence for a  crime that is of  a size,                                                                    
bulk,   quantity,  or   physical   character  that   renders                                                                    
preservation    impracticable.    If   the    evidence    is                                                                    
impracticable, the bill asks the  agency to grab those small                                                                    
portions of  biological evidence that  may be useful  in the                                                                    
future to  allow for a  claim of innocence or  conviction if                                                                    
necessary.  He   noted  the  language  insertion   from  the                                                                    
Department of Law (DOL) "or  until 50 years passes" allowing                                                                    
a  limit with  respect to  the  amount of  time evidence  is                                                                    
retained in  storage. The Alaska  Native Justice  Center was                                                                    
added to the  task force. He noted that the  task force will                                                                    
provide good feedback in respect to evidence preservation.                                                                      
1:51:02 PM                                                                                                                    
Senator French  discussed provisions on post  conviction DNA                                                                    
testing.  Individuals  in  prison  can  assert  a  claim  of                                                                    
innocence because  of DNA  evidence that  may not  have been                                                                    
considered  or available  during  conviction. The  provision                                                                    
ensures  that  no  innocent individual  is  retained  in  an                                                                    
Alaska  prison.  He explained  that  SB  110 is  modeled  on                                                                    
Federal post  conviction DNA statutes, which  were passed in                                                                    
2004  by a  republican  congress. He  opined  that the  bill                                                                    
struck  the  proper  balance  between  civil  liberties  and                                                                    
protection of  the public order.  Changes to HB  316 include                                                                    
the deletion  of language requiring applicants  to cover the                                                                    
cost  of  evidence  retrieval.  Timeliness  provisions  were                                                                    
changed in  that current prisoners  have ten years  from the                                                                    
passage  of  the  bill  to   initiate  a  claim.  Provisions                                                                    
regarding guilt  where the applicant did  not conceive guilt                                                                    
under oath  in an official  proceeding can be waived  by the                                                                    
court  in  the  interest   of  justice.  He  explained  that                                                                    
innocent  people   sometimes  plead  guilty  to   crimes.  A                                                                    
requirement asking  for an  attorney affidavit  was deleted.                                                                    
New  language in  Section 10  states that  the proposed  DNA                                                                    
testing of  the specific  evidence may produce  new material                                                                    
that one would support the theory raised by the defense.                                                                        
1:54:19 PM                                                                                                                    
DAN SULLIVAN,  ATTORNEY GENERAL,  DEPARTMENT OF  LAW, sought                                                                    
guidance from  the House Finance  Committee about  the three                                                                    
bills  presented  by  the governor.  He  provided  testimony                                                                    
during  the first  week of  session regarding  the ten  year                                                                    
comprehensive  plan  to  address  the  problem  of  domestic                                                                    
violence and  sexual assault  in Alaska.  He noted  that the                                                                    
way to  combat the epidemic  of sexual assault  and domestic                                                                    
violence is  with a  ten year  strategic plan.  He mentioned                                                                    
that the  help of the  legislature has been  instrumental in                                                                    
the initiative process. He focused  on the implementation of                                                                    
the plan  as a key  aspect of the initiative.  The strategic                                                                    
objective  is  focused on  changing  the  culture through  a                                                                    
comprehensive education and  prevention campaign promoting a                                                                    
culture  of   respect.  He  noted  the   importance  of  law                                                                    
enforcement  for interested  communities.  He discussed  the                                                                    
issue of  victim services availability. A  summit of lawyers                                                                    
to  increase the  legal services  via pro  bono work  is one                                                                    
potential solution.                                                                                                             
2:00:51 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.   Sullivan   mentioned   the  legislation   before   the                                                                    
committee.  He recalled  SB 222,  SB 110  and HB  324, which                                                                    
have  been improved  by  this body.  He  requested that  the                                                                    
bills go  out of  committee as a  package today.  He pointed                                                                    
out bail  reform as an  important issue. Alaska has  not had                                                                    
significant bail  reform since  the 1960s and  HB 324  is an                                                                    
effort to  "catch up" to  federal standards.  He highlighted                                                                    
four  key points  in  HB  324. The  first  point requires  a                                                                    
person  charged with  a serious  sex offense  to prove  that                                                                    
release conditions before trial  will protect the victim and                                                                    
the  public.  The  second point  prohibits  a  person  found                                                                    
guilty of a  serious sex offense from  being released before                                                                    
sentencing or  during an appeal  of a conviction.  The third                                                                    
point protects  the victims of domestic  violence by setting                                                                    
standards  that  the  court  must  find  before  allowing  a                                                                    
perpetrator of  domestic violence to return  to the victim's                                                                    
residence.  The fourth  point allows  more  time before  the                                                                    
defendant's  first appearance  in  court for  the police  to                                                                    
investigate and the prosecutor to  make an informed charging                                                                    
decision  to present  better bail  arguments and  to contact                                                                    
the victim so that they may  be present at the bail hearing.                                                                    
He  commented  on the  positive  demonstration  made by  the                                                                    
administration, the House Finance  Committee, and the Senate                                                                    
Judiciary  Committee.  He  complimented  the  various  staff                                                                    
members whose involvement created  a strong package of three                                                                    
bills  encompassing  important  components  of  the  overall                                                                    
strategic plan to end sexual assault and domestic violence.                                                                     
2:05:47 PM                                                                                                                    
SUE MCLEAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPARTMENT  OF LAW, stated that                                                                    
the testimony  from Senator French  was consistent  with the                                                                    
department's viewpoint.  She expressed a strong  interest in                                                                    
allowing a challenge  of convictions with the  advent of DNA                                                                    
testing.  She  stated that  SB  110  strikes an  appropriate                                                                    
RICHARD   SVOBODNY,   DEPUTY  ATTORNEY   GENERAL,   CRIMINAL                                                                    
DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT  OF  LAW, noted  that  the  department                                                                    
worked  well with  the administration  and Senator  French's                                                                    
district.  The requirements  for  obtaining post  conviction                                                                    
relief under the state statute  closely resemble the federal                                                                    
statute.  He pointed  out one  instance on  Page 6,  Line 28                                                                    
that does not  follow the federal statute in  which a person                                                                    
must be  incarcerated prior to post  conviction relief. With                                                                    
SB  110,  incarceration is  not  a  requirement. The  change                                                                    
allows  for the  increased availability  of post  conviction                                                                    
2:09:17 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze opened public testimony.                                                                                       
JEFFREY   MITTMAN,   EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR,   AMERICAN   CIVIL                                                                    
LIBERTIES UNION OF ALASKA, testified in favor of the bill.                                                                      
Co-Chair  Stoltze  pointed out  two  fiscal  notes from  the                                                                    
Department of Public Safety (DPS) and one from DOL.                                                                             
Mr. Svobodny explained  the $4000 fiscal note  from DOL. The                                                                    
court  of  appeals  created  standards  on  post  conviction                                                                    
relief,  but  DOL  believes   that  the  legislature  should                                                                    
determine standards  for Alaska.  The $4000 cost  allows the                                                                    
task force to impose standards  for the retention and return                                                                    
of evidence.                                                                                                                    
2:13:08 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Stoltze detailed the zero  fiscal note from DPS and                                                                    
one zero fiscal note from the Senate Finance Committee.                                                                         
ORIN DYM, FORENSIC LABORATORY  MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC                                                                    
SAFETY, stated that the fiscal note  takes the form of a new                                                                    
crime  lab.  He explained  that  the  department has  gained                                                                    
efficiency  in   evidence  handling  and   evidence  storage                                                                    
providing reserves for the next two years.                                                                                      
Co-Chair Hawker  asked about  the fiscal  note from  DOL. He                                                                    
asked if  the funding  would be  absorbed into  the existing                                                                    
budget   authority.   Mr.   Svobodny  responded   that   the                                                                    
department could absorb the  cost. Co-Chair Hawker commended                                                                    
the frugality of  the zero fiscal note.  Mr. Svobodny agreed                                                                    
to present the note as a zero fiscal note.                                                                                      
2:16:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara  moved  AMENDMENT 1.  Co-Chair  Stoltze                                                                    
     Amendment One                                                                                                              
     Delete "(A) is not inconsistent with a defense                                                                             
     presented at trial; and (B)"                                                                                               
Representative  Gara spoke  to the  amendment. He  explained                                                                    
one outstanding  issue on Page  8, Line 19 addressed  by the                                                                    
amendment. This section of the  bill states that if a person                                                                    
is innocent  and able  to prove it  with DNA  evidence, then                                                                    
the person will  no longer be in jail. He  wished to prevent                                                                    
any additional road  blocks for an innocent  person. The DNA                                                                    
evidence  is   present  for  the   person  who   is  wrongly                                                                    
convicted.  He noted  the list  of ten  points that  must be                                                                    
illustrated to prove  innocence. If Line 19  is not amended,                                                                    
then an  innocent person  charged on  misidentification, who                                                                    
chooses  a  plea  of  self  defense  as  recommended  by  an                                                                    
attorney,  will not  be  eligible for  the  benefits of  DNA                                                                    
testing.  The  amendment  states  that  an  innocent  person                                                                    
cannot  be  punished  for  a  decision  made  by  the  trial                                                                    
attorney.  He provided  a hypothetical  case  in which  this                                                                    
amendment would prove necessary.                                                                                                
2:21:47 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. McLean  noted that  a balance  must be  obtained between                                                                    
assuring that an innocent person  could utilize DNA evidence                                                                    
testing and those who might use  the new law to perpetrate a                                                                    
fraud  on the  court.  Normally in  self  defense cases  the                                                                    
defendant would testify  that he acted in  self defense. She                                                                    
added that if a defendant had  a lawyer that talked him into                                                                    
a fraudulent plea, then he has  an opportunity to file for a                                                                    
petition  for   a  post  conviction  relief   based  on  the                                                                    
ineffective   assistance   of   counsel   leading   to   his                                                                    
Representative  Gara clarified  that all  circumstances must                                                                    
be  covered  to truly  achieve  a  balance. He  argued  that                                                                    
balance is impossible if a person cannot use DNA evidence.                                                                      
2:23:55 PM                                                                                                                    
General  Sullivan responded  that the  bill does  comprise a                                                                    
balance. He noted  that the language states  that the theory                                                                    
of  defense is  inconsistent,  which  provides some  "wiggle                                                                    
room."  The language  achieves the  balance  in the  federal                                                                    
Representative Doogan  understood that  if a person  chose a                                                                    
plea  and lost  then  they  are rendered  unable  to file  a                                                                    
petition for  post conviction relief. He  did not understand                                                                    
how  amendment one  would negatively  affect  any person  or                                                                    
entity  involved. Mr.  Svobodny  responded  that most  trial                                                                    
lawyers  seek the  truth.   Representative Doogan  commented                                                                    
that the  person on  trial does  not pay  the price  in this                                                                    
circumstance. His attorney makes the decision.                                                                                  
2:29:16 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Svobodny stated that he  was a prior public defender and                                                                    
he never advised a person to  run a defense that was untrue.                                                                    
He  recalled instances  where a  defendant  requested a  new                                                                    
lawyer because the current lawyer  would not defend based on                                                                    
the story  provided by the  defendant. He believed  that the                                                                    
courts  should  strive  to  tell the  truth  as  opposed  to                                                                    
misleading people.                                                                                                              
Representative Doogan stated that  the goal of the amendment                                                                    
is  to prove  innocence and  tell the  truth. He  noted that                                                                    
without  this, prosecutors  will return  to court  and allow                                                                    
for  further  DNA  testing.  He  cited  that  the  DNA  test                                                                    
provides infallible proof.                                                                                                      
2:31:51 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Austerman asked  if chapter  73 of  the bill                                                                    
was based federal law. Senator  French answered yes; chapter                                                                    
73 is largely patterned after post conviction DNA statutes.                                                                     
2:33:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Gara  stressed that  a  lawyer  can help  an                                                                    
innocent  person use  DNA evidence  to prove  that they  are                                                                    
innocent.  He  clarified  that  his  hypothetical  situation                                                                    
addressed an  innocent person.  He requested  testimony from                                                                    
the department.                                                                                                                 
2:35:38 PM                                                                                                                    
QUINLAN  STEINER,  PUBLIC  DEFENDER  AGENCY,  DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
ADMINISTRATION, commented that  the amendment addresses both                                                                    
section  seven   and  eight.   Section  eight   details  the                                                                    
requirement  of  the   perpetrator's  identity  disputed  at                                                                    
trial. Subsection  eight requires  that the court  find that                                                                    
the  applicant  was  convicted   after  a  trial,  which  is                                                                    
inconsistent with another section  of the bill which permits                                                                    
a  post  conviction DNA  relief  after  a guilty  plea.  The                                                                    
defense  attorney could  make a  reasonable decision  to run                                                                    
self defense, which creates an ethical dilemma.                                                                                 
2:38:45 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Gara asked if  there were circumstances where                                                                    
an  attorney acting  in  good faith  would  run one  defense                                                                    
during trial and later be  precluded from using DNA evidence                                                                    
to prove that  the client was innocent.  Mr. Steiner replied                                                                    
yes, the most obvious example  is a self defense claim which                                                                    
identifies the defendant  as the person who  created the act                                                                    
with  eyewitnesses stating  that  the person  was acting  in                                                                    
self  defense. A  defense  attorney may  elect  to run  self                                                                    
defense rather  than an  identification defense  despite the                                                                    
fact that  the client  denies presence at  the scene  of the                                                                    
crime. The decision rests exclusively with the attorney.                                                                        
Co-Chair Hawker commented on the  debate. He stated that his                                                                    
aide  is  supportive  of the  amendment.  He  asked  Senator                                                                    
French about the amendment and the balance of concerns.                                                                         
2:41:07 PM                                                                                                                    
Senator  French responded  that research  shows the  federal                                                                    
statute is the gold standard.  He stated that he approved of                                                                    
the bill without change.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair  Hawker  asked  the Attorney  General  his  opinion                                                                    
about amendment one.                                                                                                            
General  Sullivan stated  that  each  provision requires  an                                                                    
element of balance. He sought  to strike the proper balance.                                                                    
The procedures are intended to  prevent the incarceration of                                                                    
innocent  people. He  respected the  concerns raised  in the                                                                    
amendment, but the procedures are a balance in judgment.                                                                        
2:44:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Fairclough  spoke to the example  provided by                                                                    
Representative Gara.  She wondered  if the  defense attorney                                                                    
would have considered  DNA evidence prior to  the trial. She                                                                    
was unsure how the DNA  evidence was obtained once the trial                                                                    
Mr.  Steiner  responded  that similar  decisions  were  made                                                                    
prior to  sophisticated DNA  testing allowing  for strategic                                                                    
reasons  to forgo  testing. An  attorney must  make judgment                                                                    
calls regarding the evidence's  likelihood of success, which                                                                    
includes questioning the defendant's testimony.                                                                                 
Representative Gara  stated that  the sophistication  of DNA                                                                    
evidence is recent and unprecedented.                                                                                           
2:47:12 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Hawker informed that court  officers intend to make                                                                    
good decisions and are seeking  justice. People in the court                                                                    
system  are  not  always  part   of  the  judiciary  system.                                                                    
Occasionally immigrants  might not  feel comfortable  in the                                                                    
judicial system. This  person may seek the  best option out.                                                                    
He explained that the defense  mechanism could be the result                                                                    
of fear or lack of  understanding of the judicial system. He                                                                    
wondered if the requirement might be inconsistent.                                                                              
2:51:03 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Steiner commented that the  amendment may not completely                                                                    
address the  issue. Subsection eight requires  that identity                                                                    
be disputed and works in concert with Section seven.                                                                            
Representative  Joule  commented  that all  native  Alaskans                                                                    
look alike  to some people.  He wondered how the  issue fits                                                                    
in to the amendment.                                                                                                            
Senator  French  stated that  the  DNA  testing might  truly                                                                    
exonerate the defendant only with  an eyewitness that proves                                                                    
that  the blood  on the  victim fell  on the  defendant. The                                                                    
police would  test any blood  found on the victim.  In order                                                                    
for DNA  evidence to  exonerate the  defendant the  blood on                                                                    
the victim would require testing.                                                                                               
2:54:19 PM                                                                                                                    
General Sullivan  commented that the  hypothetical situation                                                                    
assumes that  the person  is innocent and  the blood  is not                                                                    
presented at trial.  He pointed out that  a defense attorney                                                                    
might wisely avoid DNA testing, but  then seek it out in the                                                                    
event of a conviction.                                                                                                          
2:56:23 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Kelly asked how  many states have adopted the                                                                    
federal approach. Senator French did not know the answer.                                                                       
Representative   Gara   explained  that   his   hypothetical                                                                    
situation  included  a  pre   DNA  evidence  conviction.  He                                                                    
accepted  that  many people  do  not  fit the  hypothetical,                                                                    
although  if the  amendment allows  one  innocent person  to                                                                    
leave jail, then he will be content.                                                                                            
Representative Doogan  asked to  know the potential  harm of                                                                    
the amendment if passed.                                                                                                        
2:59:30 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.   McLean  responded   that  the   amendment  opens   the                                                                    
opportunity for those  who are not in fact  innocent and are                                                                    
continually  bringing  various  motions on  other  theories.                                                                    
The harm is that the trial and appeals have occurred.                                                                           
Representative Doogan asked if  the amendment would harm the                                                                    
lawyer.  He noted  that the  provision removed  includes the                                                                    
words "I did not do it."  Ms. McLean answered that those who                                                                    
present  a defensive  alibi yet  were guilty  can now  use a                                                                    
plea  of self  defense.  She  stated that  the  harm is  the                                                                    
manipulation  of the  system making  it  more difficult  for                                                                    
those people seeking access to the system.                                                                                      
Representative  Doogan reminded  that  a DNA  test does  not                                                                    
allow for a conviction change.                                                                                                  
3:02:35 PM                                                                                                                    
General  Sullivan  clarified that  he  is  not admitting  to                                                                    
administrative  convenience.  He  thought the  harm  to  the                                                                    
system   was  in   allowing  new   theories   that  may   be                                                                    
inconsistent with previous  theories and thereby encouraging                                                                    
a form of "crapshoot justice."                                                                                                  
Representative   Doogan   expressed   dissatisfaction   with                                                                    
further argument versus an answer  to his question regarding                                                                    
the  potential  harm  of  the  amendment.  He  repeated  the                                                                    
question "what is the harm in the amendment?"                                                                                   
Representative  Fairclough  pointed  out  the  cost  to  the                                                                    
state's  investment  in  correctional  facilities  when  DNA                                                                    
evidence is utilized.  The harm to the system  is that state                                                                    
dollars  would be  spent to  test theory  after theory.  She                                                                    
recalled an appeal process addressed in the CS.                                                                                 
3:07:02 PM                                                                                                                    
Senator  French  referred to  Page  9,  which addresses  the                                                                    
summary  dismissal if  a  person does  not  comply with  the                                                                    
requirements of the discussed provisions.                                                                                       
Ms.  McLean added  that citizens  always have  the right  to                                                                    
appeal a court order.                                                                                                           
Representative Gara concluded that  if the amendment passes,                                                                    
a person must present the  affidavit and illustrate that the                                                                    
DNA evidence  will prove innocence.  If there was  prior DNA                                                                    
evidence, the defendant must illustrate  the reason that the                                                                    
new  DNA evidence  is  superior. The  DNA  evidence must  be                                                                    
proposed  as  sound  and  valid. The  balance  will  be  the                                                                    
inconvenience  of rotten  people who  abuse the  system, but                                                                    
for   an   innocent  person   who   might   not  have   been                                                                    
sophisticated  enough   to  insist   on  the   best  defense                                                                    
possible,  the  amendment  could  make  the  difference.  He                                                                    
continued that  he felt that  the bill was good  with strong                                                                    
standards and many hoops to  jump through prior to utilizing                                                                    
DNA evidence.                                                                                                                   
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR: 6                                                                                                                     
OPPOSED: 5                                                                                                                      
Amendment one was ADOPTED.                                                                                                      
3:12:09 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to report  HCSCSSB 110(FIN) as amended                                                                    
out  of Committee  with individual  recommendations and  the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal notes. There  being NO OBJECTION, it was                                                                    
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
HCSCSSB 110(FIN)  was REPORTED out  of Committee with  a "do                                                                    
pass"  recommendation and  with attached  new zero  notes by                                                                    
the  House  Finance  Committee for  Department  of  Law  and                                                                    
previously published fiscal notes: FN4 (DPS) and FN5 (DPS).                                                                     

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HCS for CSSB 110(JUD) sectional.doc HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 110
HCS for SB110 Sponsor Statement.doc HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 110
HB 324 CSWORKDRAFT S VERSION.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
HB 324 CSWORKDRAFT S VERSION.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
AK S.B. 222 Letter to House Finance Committee.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 222
CSHB324(JUD)-DOA-PDA-04-12-10.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
SB 222 Gov. Letter & ACLU Letter.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 222
DOC001.PDF HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 222
10 CSHB 324 (JUD) FN NEW COURTS.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
10 CSHB 324 (JUD) FN.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
06 HB324 ACLU Position paper 2010 03 22[1].pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
05 HB324 Court Records[1].pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
03 HB324 Sectional v. A[1].pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 324
HB 283 Amendment #1 Hawker.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 283
Final Ten-Year Plan to Combat Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence doc.doc HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB283-DOA-DMV-02-05-10 (3).pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 283
SB 110 Amendment #1 Gara.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 110
HB 126 Testimony.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 126
CSSB222(JUD)-DOA-PDA-04-12-10.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
SB 222
HB 126 CS WORKDRAFT VERSION 26-LS0309 Q.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM
HB 126
AK S.B. 222 Letter to House Finance Committee.pdf HFIN 4/12/2010 1:30:00 PM