Category: Testimony

A State-Level Child Tax Credit Would Make New Jersey More Affordable for Working Families

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good afternoon, Chair Sarlo, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

One in 10 New Jersey children live in poverty, an appalling figure for one of the country’s wealthiest states. That rate is even higher for the state’s youngest children, with families fighting each day to meet the high cost of raising children in the state.

The bill before you today creating a state-level Child Tax Credit shows a new way forward, sending money directly to families to help alleviate these costs. As the expanded federal Child Tax Credit demonstrated, sending direct payments to families with children can reduce poverty, improve food security, and keep family finances stable through rocky economic times.

With those tough times on the horizon, and inaction from Congress on extending the federal Child Tax Credit, now is the time for New Jersey to join states like New Mexico, Vermont, and Minnesota in creating a state-level Child Tax Credit to assist families this year and for years to come. Although this $500 credit is not going to cure child poverty, it will make life a little easier for families of young children.

By covering households earning up to $80,000, the proposed credit would ensure that support goes to families who need it most, benefitting around 250,000 households and more than 400,000 children.

A state-level Child Tax Credit is a critical step in making New Jersey affordable for all. I urge the committee to consider bills that, like the Child Tax Credit, assist working families become financially secure, including expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (S-2458) and WorkFirst New Jersey reforms (S-1642).

Thank you.

Liberty State Park is for the People, Not Private Developers

Posted on by NJPP Staff

Good morning, Chair Verrelli and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Alex Ambrose, Policy Analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective, and I am here in support of the amendments to A4264 put forth by Sam Pesin, President of Friends of Liberty State Park, and Greg Remaud, Chief Executive Officer of the NYNJ Baykeeper.

These amendments would create additional recreational opportunities and increase public access to Liberty State Park, all while protecting critical natural spaces and habitat areas, by:

  1. Protecting the Caven Point Natural Area Migratory Bird Habitat and Nesting Area
  2. Prohibiting large-scale commercialization or privatization of the park
  3. Designating 50 acres of the interior for active recreation, with no more than 62 total active recreation developments throughout the park, in line with the acreage development recommendations from the NJ DEP 2020 New Vision Plan
  4. Requiring that the $250 million appropriated in the bill can only be used for certain purposes, as outlined in the Liberty State Park Protection Act, sponsored by Assemblyman Raj Mukherji of Jersey City.

But I’m not here to explain the amendments, as many others here have done and will do, but to paint a picture of what Liberty State Park could look like with these amendments in place.

It’s a beautiful, sunny June day. You step off the shuttle into Liberty State Park with your little one. They run ahead, wanting to join the kids practicing on the new soccer field. Instead, you grab their hand, giving them your reusable bags you’re going to fill up with produce from the farmer’s market ahead. You pass a group of senior citizens chatting about the aerobics class they finished up at the new community center swimming pool.

Later, snacking on some fresh blueberries, you walk over to a giant field dotted with blankets, a few people leaning up against trees. A local musician has gathered a crowd singing Springsteen. You stay for a few songs even though you’re more of a Bon Jovi fan.

Your little one darts around the trees, playing an impromptu game of tag with a few other kids. You hear one of the other parents, who like you maybe got into birding during the pandemic, mention they saw a red knot — an endangered bird — flying near Caven Point just the other day.

There is no smell of asbestos. There is no worry about contaminants under your feet. There is just the wind whipping off the water, gulls circling overhead, keeping an eye on the new international food court to see if they can snag a chip from an unsuspecting visitor.

To support the amendments put forth today is to support a future like this. A future where the park remains open to the public, safe for children and wildlife alike.

I want to make this clear: this is not about being pro-development or anti-development. It’s about investing in Liberty State Park responsibly, and doing what’s backed by science and public input.

Assemblywoman McKnight, I thank you for your leadership on this and the Liberty State Protection Act. I know you want the best for this state. I ask you amend this bill with the four provisions to ensure that this generation and the next can have this kind of future.

Thank you.

Racial Impact Statements Are Essential When Changing Criminal Justice Policy to Advance Racial Justice

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairwoman Greenstein and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I’m Marleina Ubel from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

While the bill is less than ideal and unlikely to actually reduce gun violence, NJPP supports the amendments that have been made to narrow the scope of S513. However, we cannot fully support this legislation without a racial impact statement. Legislation like S513 will likely change the number of people being held in our jails and it is critical that a racial impact statement accompany this bill given that New Jersey has a history of arresting and incarcerating people of color at disproportionate rates. Moreover, it is required by statute that the Office of Legislative Services produce and make publicly available racial impact statements when there is a change in criminal justice policy.

Thank you.

Easy Enrollment Would Make Affordable Health Care More Accessible for All

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon Chairman Danielsen and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on the proposed Easy Enrollment program. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP strongly supports the establishment of an Easy Enrollment program for New Jersey. Extensive research has shown that, in addition to affordability, a significant obstacle to lowering uninsured rates lies in the enrollment process itself. A lack of easily accessible resources for many residents means that there are residents who are eligible for affordable care who struggle to enroll. This program would take a regular event in the calendar — the filing of tax forms — and turn it into an opportunity for people to quickly and easily receive information about coverage for which they are eligible, simply by checking a box.

The idea of easing enrollment is not a new approach: we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic that a pause in disenrollment in Medicaid — resulting in the removal of constant re-enrollment burdens for those who may lose eligibility temporarily or need to switch to new coverage — has helped to lower the number of uninsured New Jerseyans. Additionally, similar, more limited options have existed for decades, including through programs like Express Lane Eligibility for enrolling children in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. These programs, when fully addressing the needs of residents, not only reduce obstacles for those residents, but decrease administrative costs where data sharing can eliminate redundant paperwork.

To ensure the program’s efficacy, legislators and administrators should take lessons from successful enrollment experiences in other states — specifically in Maryland, where a similar Easy Enrollment program is already up and running (url listed below for further information). Waiving the shared responsibility payment is a good step to provide an upfront incentive for people to participate. Pre-populated forms, structured follow-up outreach systems that involve feedback and coordination with community organizations, and auto-enrollment for those who qualify for free coverage would further ease the process and limit excessive time requirements for enrollment and verification. Finally, setting a required implementation date would ensure that this program is established in a timely manner.

We hope that the Committee will release this bill today and support the building of this important program.

Thank you for your time.

Link to a brief overview of Maryland’s Easy Enrollment program, mentioned above: https://www.marylandhealthconnection.gov/easyenrollment/

It’s Time to Hold Amazon Accountable for High Worker Injury Rates

Posted on by Nicole Rodriguez

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Sumter and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I’m Nicole Rodriguez, Research Director and incoming President of New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a nonpartisan think tank focused on state-level policies that advance economic, racial, and social justice for New Jersey residents.

All working people deserve to be safe on the job. But, as our report points out, people who work at Amazon are far too often not safe. As Amazon grows into the state’s largest private employer, the injury crisis in its facilities is accelerating. In New Jersey, the total recordable injury rate among Amazon warehouse employees was 5.8 per 100 workers in 2021 compared to 3.8 per 100 workers in 2020. This is more than a 50 percent increase.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg — many injuries go unreported or are not investigated by OSHA.

New Jersey isn’t alone. Across the country, Amazon work is far more dangerous than work in comparable industries, as revealed by employer data reported to OSHA: Injury rates among Amazon workers nationwide were almost twice as high as the injury rate among all other warehouse employers in 2021.

What makes New Jersey unique, however, is the rate of growth of Amazon facilities and workers in the state. The number of Amazon’s New Jersey employees grew from 5,500 to 49,000, a nearly 800 percent increase, in the past five years. We are now home to 53 Amazon facilities, and there are plans to expand operations at Newark Airport.

New Jersey is fast becoming Amazon’s staging ground to build and strengthen its presence across the country. Amazon needs our public assets — our roads, highways, and ports — which unfortunately exacerbates pollution. Now they need the airport, where Amazon is trying to build an air hub without public input.

But, ultimately, they need our workers. And we need enforceable standards to protect our workers.

Good employers already provide this. But Amazon has proved over and over that it doesn’t prioritize the very workers that bring its company success.

This needs to change.

Amazon workers shouldn’t have to risk injury to help New Jersey residents receive packages rapidly.

These workers deserve passage of legislation that will mandate health and safety protections for workers. In this spirit, we recommend the following:

  1. Workers should be allowed to form health and safety committees in each worksite to create and run safety training programs as well as monitor, review, and collaborate with employers on all workplace health and safety policies. New York State passed the Health and Essential Rights Act or “Hero’s Act” in 2021, which allows for just this. Workers know best how to protect themselves, and it would benefit Amazon to listen to them.
  2. Unreasonably high productivity quotas contribute to on-the-job injuries. We need a regulatory framework that addresses harmful management practices. Workers should have the right to refuse to work if they feel unsafe, as well as protection from retaliation when raising concerns, and transparency in quotas.
  3. Finally, we should establish strong penalties and enforcement mechanisms to promote compliance. Strong enforcement levels the playing field for businesses that do comply with the law.

If the pandemic taught us anything, it is our collective responsibility to keep each other safe. Workers and good employers can’t do this alone.

Thank you for your time.

Local Government Should Not Be Funded With Fines and Fees

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good afternoon, Chairman Spearman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I’m Marleina Ubel from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents, and it is in keeping with this mission that I testify in opposition to A-959.

Municipal government and services should be funded with robust, reliable, and progressive revenues, not fines and fees extracted by law enforcement or court systems. A-959 would divert funds generated by fines and fees from state coffers to the municipal government where a motor-vehicle violation happens to take place. “Taxation by citation” for local government through law-enforcement-generated fines and fees has a history of being discriminatory, falls heavily on low-income residents, and creates an unreliable source of revenue.

Motor vehicle fines and fees disproportionately fall on lower-income residents and communities of color. In the first half of 2021, Black motorists made up more than 24 percent of State Police summonses, despite making up only 13 percent of the state’s total population.

Law enforcement and government finance groups on the left, right, and center agree that funding government through motor vehicle fines and fees distorts government services and undermines public safety and public trust in law enforcement and courts.

If the goal of A-959 is to ensure appropriate funding for municipal courts, NJPP recommends robust state funding for municipal courts. As the Supreme Court Working Group on Municipal Courts report from 2019 suggests, the Legislature should focus on reducing local reliance on law-enforcement- and judicially-imposed fines and fees, rather than deepening municipal reliance on these unstable and discriminatory revenue sources.

Legislation Undermining the Criminal Justice Reform Act Would Harm Communities of Color

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairwoman Greenstein and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I’m Marleina Ubel from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

S513 has an admirable goal of reducing gun violence. But its broad scope undermines core features of New Jersey’s gold-standard bail reform law and there is no evidence it will actually reduce gun violence.

The proposed bill essentially reverses the substantial progress of the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA). This is because the Graves Act originally encompassed only firearms used as part of serious violent offenses. But since 2008, the Graves Act has encompassed a wide range of offenses. This bill would put mere unlawful possession of a handgun or rifle on par with murder or other crimes eligible for life imprisonment. These two acts do not present nearly the same threat or harm.

And these defendants would be on even worse footing than before the CJRA was enacted. Prior to the CJRA, they could have bailed themselves out through money bail. But under the proposed legislation, these residents would have no recourse to free themselves. Accused of nonviolent and mere possession offenses, many will have to languish in dangerous county lock-ups with no way to prove otherwise to a court until their trial.

The existing law already allows for courts to effectively evaluate whether Graves-Act-eligible offenses are serious enough to warrant pretrial detention, in consideration of all the current factors.

A recent report from the Judiciary on the Graves Act[i] shows that the existing system properly evaluates a defendant’s risk to the community:

  • Prosecutors only filed detention motions in 79.4 percent of matters where the defendant was charged with Graves offenses. This means they considered more than 1 in 5 Graves offenses as unserious enough to warrant filing for detention.
  • Judges already detain defendants charged with Graves offenses at more than twice the rate of other defendants.
  • Only 11 percent of the over 1,000 defendants released pretrial for Graves offenses were rearrested for a serious or weapons-related offense.

 

The track record of the CJRA is clear: fewer residents are detained in county lock-up, without sacrificing public safety. Adding all Graves offenses to presumptive detention will be replacing a policy scalpel with a sledgehammer aimed at communities of color.

What we learned from the 90s, is that ratcheting up detention just hurts racial and ethnic groups that are already disproportionately hurt by the criminal justice system. If the bill passes in its current form, the exact evils of the cash bail system will return – over incarceration of Black and Hispanic/Latinx residents who have not yet been convicted of a crime, in exchange for little to no public safety benefit: Of Graves Act defendants, over 75 percent were Black while approximately 20 percent were white. By comparison of non-Graves offenses, only 50 percent were Black and 40 percent white.

NJPP opposes S513 in its entirety, but at the very least, amendments should be made to remove the nonviolent and possessory offenses.

Thank you.

End Notes

[i] Source: New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts Graves Act Analysis, March 4, 2022: https://www.njcourts.gov/courts/assets/criminal/graves03042022.pdf?c=w6T.

The State Budget Can Do More to Make New Jersey Affordable for All

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning, Chairwoman Pintor Marin and members of the committee. My name is Peter Chen and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice. Our organization is also a member of the For The Many budget coalition.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on New Jersey’s Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.

Affordable for Who?

We have been hearing the drumbeat on making New Jersey “affordable” but as we have noted, the question we must ask is “affordable for who?” New Jersey’s economy works best when it works for all of us. An inclusive recovery is one where we prioritize making the state affordable for those hit hardest by the pandemic — Black and Hispanic/Latinx workers, students, families, and communities in particular. That’s why it’s so important that the FY 2023 budget advances changes which make the tax code more equitable and the state more affordable for low- and moderate-income households.

NJPP has proposed a package of programs to put money back in the pockets of these families and individuals, including:

  • A state-level Child Tax Credit;
  • Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, both in amount and eligibility;
  • Replenishment of the Excluded New Jerseyans Fund;
  • Reforms to WorkFirst New Jersey that improve eligibility and benefits.

 

These proposals would directly support the families still fighting to make ends meet, as federal aid dries up.

And to help the middle-class and working-class New Jerseyans are struggling with skyrocketing housing costs and inflationary pressure, the state must spend the remaining $3.5 billion Fiscal Recovery Funds (FRF) in ways that reflect the principles President Biden set down: to directly address the public health crisis, help the people who need it most, and reduce racial and economic inequities exposed and worsened by the ongoing pandemic.

NJPP recommends direct relief payments and hazard pay for essential workers who put their lives at risk when COVID swept through the state, health care workers who now suffer from PTSD, and child care workers who are indispensable to the workforce yet remain severely underpaid. Those individuals held up as “heroes” during the pandemic deserve actual compensation for the risks they continue to face, not lip service.

Planning for the Future

With anticipation of funding cliffs in the future, New Jersey must begin planning for the future responsibly. As the pandemic demonstrated, a hollowed-out state government and lack of financial cushion cannot effectively meet crises when they emerge.

Lawmakers should take a multi-year approach to budget-making this year to ensure the $4.5 billion surplus puts the state on solid ground once the federal aid is gone and economic activity slows. Taking this more balanced approach to state finances ensures that the next crisis does not result in cuts that disproportionately harm Black, Hispanic/Latinx and lower-income communities.

We strongly recommend making a deposit into the now-empty rainy day fund of $1.5 billion to prepare for the future.

No Giveaways for the Wealthy

The pandemic has laid bare the deep economic chasm between the wealthy and the rest of the state. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans have seen their wealth balloon by 50 percent since the pandemic began. Corporate profits are up, as are home valuations. When budget proposals include giveaways to households in the top-20 percent of income, or blanket tax cuts for businesses, those benefits are going straight to the wealthy and widening the wealth gap.

Meanwhile, for low-wage workers, even modest wage growth has been swallowed by higher costs for housing and food. One in 10 New Jersey residents lives in poverty, and 1 in 3 live in an “ALICE” (Asset-Limited Income-Constrained Employed) household. Will these budget proposals benefit these populations? Or will they be further giveaways to wealthy residents and corporate shareholders?

Despite this clear gap, this legislative session is teeming with proposals on “affordability” whose benefits go to the wealthy. Business owners, residential property owners, and corporate shareholders are disproportionately white and wealthy. Without careful tailoring, benefits that go to these groups will widen, rather than narrow, the gap between haves and have-nots.

State lawmakers should prioritize making New Jersey affordable for those who need the most help — not the wealthy and well-connected.

The taxes we pay are how we work together to all chip in for our shared goals and to make sure we have what we need. But the truth is some pay less than what they truly owe, putting the burden on the rest of us. Closing corporate tax loopholes and ensuring the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share can help New Jersey both fully recover and reach its full potential.

NJPP’s set of tax credit and direct-payment proposals would ensure that the hard-working New Jerseyans who kept residents safe, healthy and cared-for during the pandemic receive the help they deserve. This budget must help the grocery worker, the home health aide, the child care teacher, and the educational support aide to find the opportunity they deserve. As you evaluate this budget, NJPP asks that you keep these folks in the front of your mind, not the wealthy.

There’s no need to overthink this. We have plenty of evidence from the pandemic that direct payments and cash assistance work to reduce poverty and food insecurity, improve family finances, and stimulate the economy.

Making New Jersey affordable for low- and moderate-income households means giving them back the money they need to find economic security for themselves and their families.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Prescription Drug Affordability Board Would Help Lower Prescription Drug Costs

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good morning Senator Vitale and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on the proposed establishment of a Prescription Drug Affordability Board. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP supports S329, as it looks to provide evidence-based answers to a long-standing health care issue: high prescription drug costs that make even available medicine unaffordable for many New Jerseyans. The bill establishes an independent Prescription Drug Affordability Board, supported by sufficient funding, that will provide insight into the root causes of these high prices, and propose recommendations to address them.

I wanted to highlight two important aspects of the bill today which are often misread:

First, this bill as written fully incorporates the involvement of the Legislature in any further actions. The Board would provide their recommendations for policy changes (covering a variety of policy options) after a series of reports, but the step of approval of the recommendations would be left to the Legislature (this can be seen in subsection c of section 9, on page 12, line 33). The Legislature would then have the data to better evaluate the proposed policies in debate, and legislation would be required to move those proposals forward. We know that data helps inform those debates, particularly on health care costs, so setting this aside would simply prolong an issue. Additionally, we believe that the reports and data collected and shared by the Board would be helpful for the work of the Office of Health Care Affordability and Transparency, which has a much broader agenda in addressing health care costs and will benefit from focused studies.

Second, not only will the Board be able to provide guidance on savings and a variety of policy options, but it will do so with data from all stakeholders. Relevant actors, from pharmaceutical companies to consumers, will have the opportunity to provide their perspective and data on their role and the impact of drug pricing, including spending on research and innovation. The Board will take this information into account as they consider the recommended policies and plans.

As the country grapples with drug prices that are, on average, over 2.5 times those in other countries, several other states — including Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, Colorado, and Oregon — have already passed legislation on similar drug affordability boards. With 88 percent of New Jerseyans across party lines supporting this valuable work (see survey sources below for further details), there is no reason to let New Jersey fall behind these states in seeking solutions for its residents. Now is the time to make this investment in New Jerseyans’ health. We hope that the Committee will agree and release this bill today.

Thank you for your time.

Survey Sources:
Altarum Healthcare Value Hub New Jersey survey, August 2020
https://www.healthcarevaluehub.org/application/files/9815/9716/3875/Hub-Altarum_Data_Brief_No._69_-_New_Jersey_High_Drug_Prices.pdf

AARP 2020 NJ Residents 18-Plus Prescription Drug Study
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/health/2020/new-jersey-prescription-drug-prices-survey-fact-sheet.10.26419-2Fres.00424.001.pdf

 

Using American Rescue Plan Funds for Corporate Tax Cuts Undermines an Equitable Recovery

Posted on by Sheila Reynertson

Good morning, Chairman Madden and members of the Senate Labor Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony. I’m Sheila Reynertson from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on providing state residents with economic security.

New Jersey’s economy works best when it works for all of us. An inclusive recovery is one where those hit hardest by the pandemic — workers of color, and Black and brown women in particular — reach full employment and are the priority they deserve to be in state policymaking. That’s why it’s so important for New Jersey to its spend Fiscal Recovery Funds (FRF) in ways that reflect the principles President Biden set down: to directly address the public health crisis, help the people who need it most, and reduce racial and economic inequities exposed and worsened by the ongoing pandemic.

S733, by using FRF dollars to protect businesses from taxation, is inconsistent with the American Rescue Plan’s spirit. It undermines a just and equitable labor market recovery.

The sharp rise in joblessness early in the pandemic depleted New Jersey’s unemployment insurance (UI) trust fund, but the finances of the trust fund are not in crisis. Yet, a year ago lawmakers unnecessarily intervened on behalf of business to reduce or delay increases in employer unemployment taxes related to benefits paid during the state of emergency.[i] It’s also worth noting business recipients of assistance through the Paycheck Protection Program got a tax cut on both sides of the ledger – one for receiving the money, and another for spending it – costing New Jersey $1.2 billion needed to fund public support and services that help communities and families thrive.[ii]

Another corporate tax cut – offering to wipe out a federal low-interest loan to the UI trust fund – is shortsighted. Paying back the $580 million loan[iii] with federal emergency aid meant for the more immediate needs of workers who experienced a substantially more severe impact from the pandemic is worse than shortsighted. It is inequitable and insulting to the essential workforce  – workers who put their lives at risk when COVID swept through the state, health care workers who now suffer from PTSD, and child care workers who are indispensable to the workforce yet are still severely underpaid.

In light of the moral obligation to fund an equitable pandemic recovery, lawmakers giving the green light to yet another business tax cut raises serious concerns about the state’s commitment to support other, arguably more urgent, needs of households facing immediate hardships and neglects the opportunity these dollars present to address structural inequities.

If the goal is to assist businesses harmed most by the pandemic, there are more direct and targeted ways to provide that aid. This overly broad proposal serves as a giveaway to profitable businesses to cover a cost they are tasked with paying already and diverts emergency federal aid that people, including laid-off workers, need right now.

NJPP urges committee members to vote no on S733.

Thank you.

[i] P.L.2020, c.150.

[ii]https://www.njpp.org/publications/blog-category/tax-break-on-ppp-loan-expenses-will-cost-new-jersey-more-than-1-billion/

[iii] US Treasury’s Title XII Advance Activities Schedule as of March 3, 2022. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/tfmp/tfmp_advactivitiessched.htm

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»