Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/23/2004 01:34 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 378 - FOOD, DRUGS, COSMETICS, CERTAIN DEVICES Number 2199 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 378, "An Act relating to the Alaska Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including sales, advertising, certain devices, food donors, and food banks; making certain violations of organic food provisions and of the Alaska Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices under certain of the state's unfair trade practices and consumer protection laws; and providing for an effective date." Number 2166 GERALDINE McINTOSH, Staff to Representative William K. Williams, House Finance Committee, Alaska State Legislature, said on behalf of the House Finance Committee, sponsor, that HB 378 was introduced at the request of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Paraphrasing a portion of the sponsor statement, she said HB 378 clarifies that a violation of the label or advertisement provisions in AS 17.20, or a violation of the representation requirement in AS 17.06 is an unfair or deceptive trade practice under Alaska's statutes. This will allow the attorney general's office to investigate labeling violations that are not food safety or sanitation concerns. Number 2104 KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), said that HB 378 would mostly impact the division's Food Safety & Sanitation Program by making amendments to the Alaska Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. She predicted that the biggest concern for the committee will be "the concurrence of enforcing some aspects of this statute by our staff or the consumer-protection attorney in the [attorney general's office, Mr. Sniffen] ...." She elaborated: The situation has arose because we are often asked to enforce laws that we don't have the expertise to enforce. For example, if a product looks like it was made in Alaska but it was not, we're asked, often, to enforce our mislabeling statutes to make that an unfair commerce practice, when that would most likely fall under [Mr. Sniffen's] jurisdiction [rather] than ours. So we wanted to make that an option through ... revisions to these statutes. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked whether "grown in Alaska" would also fall under "this." MS. RYAN said no, but remarked, "Organic labeling has been added; at the very end of it you can see that they did include the organic labeling, ... under [Title] 45, so that [Mr. Sniffen] ... could enforce some organic labeling issues." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted, however, that "grown in Alaska" would not necessarily mean organic. Also, a "grown in Alaska" label could be purchased if one has a growing operation in the state, but this doesn't guarantee that a particular product was actually grown in Alaska, for example, as might be the case with cuttings. At what point can one say that something was actually grown in Alaska. He added that "'grown organically' really is not set in federal law yet." He asked Ms. Ryan to comment on the issue of control. MS. RYAN said that [the division] has not considered any aspects of enforcing organic labeling. "At this point, we don't go down that path; that's done by the Division of Agriculture [in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)], so I would defer to them to respond to that question," she added. House Bill 378 only impacts the DEC's ability to deal with food safety issues and labeling. Number 1987 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM indicated that an area of concern to him is pesticide use, which is a food safety issue. He mentioned that there have been cases wherein people that sold produce have had fungus problems or insect problems and they have sprayed their produce without proper notification. MS. RYAN indicated that she would discuss this issue with the Division of Agriculture, which is the division that oversees the organic labeling and "grown in Alaska" programs. The DEC does not deal with those aspects; instead, it deals with the food- safety aspects of processing food, not raw products. REPRESENTATIVE GARA turned attention to page 2 of HB 378, and surmised that the training, testing, and certification requirements could involve a lot of certificates. He indicated that he might have an amendment to address the issue of cost. Is this not too broad, he asked, to train, test, and certify food handlers, waiters, cooks, and undercooks? MS. RYAN replied: Yes, those are significant aspects of the bill. And I apologize for not drawing your attention to them, but they've been addressed in the [House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee], so we just felt they weren't something that this committee would be interested [in] learning about. But, yes, there will be a significant impact to our ability to get safe food by requiring individuals who handle food that we're going to eat in public to become certified. ... So it's an essential component to a food safety system that we're missing, that we've identified as needing, to make sure that we're getting safe food in the state. How we're going to implement that ... is [via the] regulation-drafting process, and we need the statutory authority to get to that point, though, and that's what this bill allows us to do. Who's going to pay for these tests, which I think you were alluding to and what your amendment is referring to, is again something that ... we don't necessarily want to get too involved in because I don't know how we would ever maintain a database of who paid for what. But, again, I still would defer that to a regulation-drafting process as to how we will be implementing a training and certification program for food workers across the state. Number 1792 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked Ms. Ryan to elaborate on the issues of how many people she anticipates being tested, what the fiscal note is, and whether there is statistical data showing that there is a problem that needs fixing. He also asked whether food sickness is rampant in restaurants in Alaska. MS. RYAN mentioned that the written comments she'd provided the committee contained a lot of background information illustrating the need for the changes being proposed via HB 378. The fiscal note is quite small, she opined, compared to the potential fee generation that will occur; the funds requested varies by year, with the first year including the initial investment in software and hardware. The two positions detailed in the fiscal note will cost approximately $200,000 per year. She said that the problem the division has identified has come about a few ways: One: yes, there is a problem with food-borne illness in the state and in the nation. It's severely underreported; it's not something you learn about. In fact, the ratio of reporting versus non reporting is 25 to 1, so we learn about 1 case for every 25 that exist. ... I am relying on CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] for that statistic. In Alaska, last year, we had 26 outbreaks - if you want an Alaskan statistic - and of those 26, they vary across the state as to where and what and how. I can pull ... an example [from] Representative Ogg's district .... You probably heard about Kodiak, it just happened a couple of months ago, the ... taco meat had salmonella in it and it was actually [an] antibiotic- resistant strain. So we're really lucky no one died, because we couldn't do anything to help them and over 50 people were sick; it was a potluck at a school. So, you just don't hear about a lot of the problems that occur and it's one of those safety nets that, when it fails, you really hear about it, but you don't really know about it when it's working decently. Number 1683 CHAIR McGUIRE asked how the certification process would work for circumstances involving potlucks. MS. RYAN replied: We have a temporary food service permit, which isn't part of this system, that you're already required to get if you have an event that's four days or longer; that's how we break it out. So, a potluck, a one- night deal, isn't a food-safety event, but if it goes into four days or longer ... we do require you to come in and get ... not our full-service permit, which is ... a little more extreme. CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that the potluck situations might be the problem area because those folks don't have training and don't make their livelihood from food preparation, so they aren't aware of safe storage, refrigeration, and cooking requirements. MS. RYAN pointed out, however, that there are significant problems in commercial food establishments. She elaborated: We had a restaurant in Kenai that put 10 people in the hospital and made probably about 300 people sick two or three years ago; [we] closed the restaurant down. ... They're lucky no one died as well. So, it's not just a private home (indisc. - coughing) problem, and as [an] agency responsible for regulating services [provided] to the public, that's my focus. ... I want to make sure that the food that I go get at [the] store or that my neighbor ... gets at the restaurant is safe, because people have a perception [that] government's protecting them in those environments. At the potluck, at the church social, you're supposed to be "buyer beware"; you're supposed know ... or at least be confident ... that the people preparing your food for you are doing it correctly. CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that at one time she'd sat on a finance subcommittee on a DEC overview with Representative Williams, who'd previously suffered from a case of botulism, and the subcommittee spent most of its time discussing food safety, inspections, and licensing issues. She asked Ms. Ryan to explain to the committee how she thinks HB 378 will address the problem better than previous attempts. Number 1567 MS. RYAN replied: We did take a cut of $500,000, again, from this program; this program has been traditionally under attack quite a bit from various members, but last year we took a cut of $500,000 and eliminated 6 inspector's positions. That left me with 18 inspectors and probably 5,000 establishments. So I was left with a position of trying to come up with a way to make sure that these 5,000 establishments are doing it right. Even before then, we were only getting in our high- risk facilities once a year 60 percent of the time. That, to me, is misleading to the general public because they have the perception that we're at least in there a lot more often than we were, and that ... their shoulders were being looked over to make sure they were washing their hands and keeping their meat separate from their vegetables. So ... staff came together - all 32 of them ... if you look at the whole program including seafood processors - and came up with Active Managerial Control, which is our new model that uses the training and certification aspect in this bill, as well as civil fines, to complete the whole food-safety network picture. This takes the reliance off government inspections and puts the responsibility on the owners and the operators of establishments: the people that are serving you food 365 days a year. We aren't in there enough; they're the ones that are going to be responsible for doing it correctly, not us. So that's why ... Representative Williams is willing to sponsor this bill [via the House Finance Committee] now, because he does feel that we have listened and have come up with something that will work across the state and be equitable, and you'll be just as safe in Wrangell as you are in Nome as you are in Anchorage. Number 1489 REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is worried that the solution as outlined on page 2, lines 5-8, is broader than the problem. He elaborated: You're asking us to trust that the agency will deal with this responsibly and narrowly, but if we're giving you really, really, really broad authority, I think we should assume that you're going to do as bad a job as we're telling you you're allowed to do. And I'm wondering whether, to be consistent with your theory of ownership and managerial control, maybe we just certify and train the owners and managers, and it's up to them to train their employees, and if they don't, they know what their fines are. Maybe that's a way. What would you think about doing it that way? MS. RYAN replied: Obviously, we would prefer to have the flexibility to address that issue in the regulation-drafting process. ... At this point, we're proposing to train and certify both food handlers and ... one manager per establishment. If that's what we end up with after the regulation-drafting process, ... [then] we communicate [that] with communities and constituents ...; that will be determined down the road. But I would like the flexibility, at this point, to have that option ... after we interact with our constituents. We did do one survey - that's in my [written] testimony - I think it was 321 respondents of our permit holders, and 90 percent of them said that food handler certification ... is what would be necessary for a safe food system, and then an additional 80 percent said a manager certification would be as well. ... And when we look at what other state's do and what our constituents are telling us through this survey, it makes sense that we have the option to do both - that that's necessary for a complete system. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he could not believe that a food handler in a McDonald's in New York or San Francisco is licensed and trained. He asked Ms. Ryan whether she has a sense of how it's done in the majority of other places. MS. RYAN explained that most food handlers in other states are licensed and trained. She relayed that when she was sixteen and working at McDonald's in Oregon, she had to get a food-handler card from a state agency. "It's very common to have a food- handler card; most states do use that," she added. Number 1358 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked who would certify the trainers and to what degree would that person be trained. MS. RYAN indicated that the division does not yet have that aspect fleshed out, adding that the bill would grant the division the statutory authority to draft regulations. And although the division does have some ideas, those ideas haven't yet been vetted through the public process. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM opined that it would be inappropriate for the legislature to grant the statutory authority without first having an idea of what methodology would be used by the division to carry out its goals. "I worry about creating a bureaucracy that doesn't have some constraints on it," he added. MS. RYAN said she would be happy to share with the committee more details of what the division will be proposing in terms of methodology, though the division is not yet sure what the end result be. She elaborated: What we propose, in Active Managerial Control, is we would have two tiers of certification required. You'd have the food-handler ... card that the food handler would have to get. Now, that training would be free and online - and it's part of the database that we would purchase with this funding - so anybody could go in and go through the training for free. There would be no certification of trainers, necessarily, although CHARR [Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailers Association], a restaurant association, has come forward and asked for the ability to be certified as trainers because they provide that service. So that's one avenue we're looking into. The manager's certification is a national accreditation program that five companies have been accredited from a national food-safety network to provide. So those are the models that we're considering, ... I'm just hesitant to say that's how it will end up .... Number 1211 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that explanation helps him a lot. He then asked what the qualifications are of the division's remaining 18 inspectors. MS. RYAN replied: They have pretty stringent requirements. They are called ... "environmental health officers." [That's] the actual title that they're given in state government, and they're sanitarians. Most of them are accredited through a national sanitation program, but they all have some fundamental sanitation training through a college degree. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked what gives environmental health officers the ability to understand the food industry such that they would know whether someone was doing something improperly. MS. RYAN replied: In the United States, for the last 100 years, we've had a food-safety system that's relied on inspectors going into processing plants and restaurants to make sure they're doing things correctly. There's standards set by CDC; there's five risks that we're always looking for, to make sure that there's not a potential for sickness. It's a very standardized field. ... We know what you can do to do things right and what you have to do to keep people from getting sick. It's not rocket science ...; it's not simple, either, but it's very standardized across the U.S., and ... internationally as well, what you look for to make sure people are handling food safely. You don't put [a vegetable] ... on the cutting board that you had ... [meat] on. You don't put raw meat in the [refrigerator] above something that it can drip onto. ... There's pretty simple guidelines that everyone is supposed to adhere to that are even in nationally accredited CDC's ... REPRESENTATIVE HOLM interjected to say that he appreciates having that information. He mentioned that California has a system whereby restaurants are given tags that reflect the food- safety standards that they meet. He asked whether something similar could be done in Alaska. Number 1011 MS. RYAN replied: The difficulty we have with that system is [that] it relies on a government inspection. If we're not in there [but] only once a year, if that, I don't know if that's an assurance that they're still [maintaining a high rating]. That [rating] is only as good as the last inspection, and if we're not in there frequently enough, it's difficult to rely on that. We used to do that ... and some communities still do .... That's a difficult thing to implement when you're not in there enough. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the division can delegate its authority to a municipality. MS. RYAN said yes, adding that it has done so with Anchorage. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to the language, "individuals who handle ... food" on page 2, line 6. He asked whether this includes those who serve food. MS. RYAN indicated that the intent is to include anyone who handles unpackaged food; thus food servers would be included. The bill's current language would allow the flexibility to make that distinction in regulation. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to Sections 3 and 5, and asked Ms. Ryan whether she'd like to have Section 5 amended to allow the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) the ability to impose fines for violations of those items listed in Section 3. MS. RYAN said she could not answer for the DHSS. She added, however, that the DHSS is familiar with the bill, has attached a zero fiscal note, and has not expressed an interest in acquiring the authority to impose civil fines. In response to a further question, she said that the DEC would not object to such an amendment. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to Section 11, and noted that certain language is being deleted from existing statute. This language, he remarked, appears to give certain due-process rights to people who are accused of violations. MS. RYAN said that the language being deleted is duplicative because existing due-process statutes already [contain this language], and having this language in this portion of statute has caused delay in enforcement actions. Number 0748 ELISE HSIEH, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), confirmed that there already are due-process statutes that would apply. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to Section 14 and asked why July 1, 2004, was chosen as the effective date. MS. RYAN relayed that having an effective date which coincides with the fiscal year would make it easier to determine when funding would be available. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to Amendment 1, labeled 23-LS1473\A.1, Bannister, 2/20/04, which read: Page 5, following line 23: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 11. AS 17.20 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 17.20.355. Certification costs. A person who has an employee who is subject in the course of the employment to the certification requirements adopted by the commissioner under AS 17.20.005(1)(D) shall pay the costs that are necessary for the employee to meet the certification requirements. The employer may not require the employee to reimburse the employer for these payments." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. MS. RYAN, in response to questions, said that Amendment 1 appears to address who would be required to pay for the testing required by Section 1, whereas the [bill] itself only gives the DHSS the ability to require the testing. Currently, the DHSS does not have the authority to charge fees for the training and certification proposed in Section 1 because it does not yet have the authority to require that training and certification. Additionally, because the DHSS already has the authority to charge fees for services, once the department is given the authority to require training, it will automatically have the authority to charge fees for that service. Number 0513 MS. RYAN, in response to further questions, said that currently, the proposed plan for food handlers is to follow the model used in the state of Washington. This would involve online training that would take approximately half an hour to go through. However, it would not be mandatory that someone complete that online training, but it would be mandatory to take the test. In other words, the training would be available and free, but not required; thus, if someone came from another state and already knew the information, he/she could simply go online and take the test, which, she estimated, could take five minutes. Upon completion of that five-minute test, for which the division is proposing charging a $10 fee, a food-handler card would be issued that would be good for three years. MS. RYAN noted that HB 378 would not affect seafood processors, which are already under stricter requirements. With regard to the bill's effective date, she explained that the division does not anticipate having the certification requirements in effect until a year from when the regulations authorized by the bill become effective. The effective date in the bill pertains to when the division can start the regulation-drafting process and begin purchasing the needed software and hardware. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how the division intends to measure whether HB 378 has been effective. MS. RYAN replied: That's a very difficult question and a problem we deal with constantly in public health because you cannot measure the effectiveness of your program because no one is getting sick or dying - that's what you would count. And, because of the [aforementioned under- reporting], it's impossible for us to really have a good indication of how effective we're being [in] keeping people safe. What we can measure is inspection scores, we can measure the cleanliness we find when we go into establishments, and that's the mechanism and the tools we'll be using as a performance measure, which is part of our budget process for the department and the food safety program. Number 0212 CHAIR McGUIRE pondered whether, for incidents like the one that occurred in Kenai, it would be helpful to establish a review team to perform an investigation. MS. RYAN said that national studies have shown that restaurants with certified workers actually have cleaner establishments than those that do not have certified workers. There has been some basic science done to show what's necessary and how to get those necessary components implemented. And although on a broader statewide scale it is hard to make an assessment regarding effectiveness, the division has always relied on the number of critical violations it finds in an establishment to make that assessment. If a program is being effective, it should find fewer critical violations, which are those that have the potential of making someone sick. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that on a statewide scale, there is nothing currently in place to ensure that establishments are operating in a safe manner, and surmised that HB 378 will go a long way toward helping the division meet its goals. "People die from food-borne illnesses; this isn't just a matter of feeling sick for 24 hours," she added. TAPE 04-23, SIDE A Number 0001 CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General, Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), indicated that one aspect of HB 378 impacts the DOL's Commercial/Fair Business Section regarding its ability to enforce and take action against people who are engaging in consumer deception with respect to the labeling of food products. He elaborated: It's an area that we had some concern about last year and, currently, the way our statutes are structured, we are unable to take action in that area because [the DEC] statutes give them the exclusive authority to do that. And the amendments to (indisc.) statute, as reflected in this bill, essentially give [the DOL] the authority to investigate and take action against folks who mislabel products. And it's not our intent to tread on the DEC's expertise when it comes to food- safety issues; we are thinking that this authority would allow us to investigate and review only those things that have consumer deception ... impacts. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions from the committee, and thank you [Chair McGuire]. MR. SNIFFEN, in response to questions, said that the DOL has submitted a zero fiscal note because it does not anticipate many such cases to come up on an annual basis and so will just absorb any extra enforcement costs, and that the DOL would have no objection to an amendment giving the DHSS the ability to impose civil fines for violation of those items under its purview that are listed in HB 378. Number 0263 MS. RYAN noted that Ms. Hsieh, in reviewing HB 378, worked with the DHSS and so may know why the DHSS did not request that ability. MS. HSIEH said that according to her recollection, the DHSS had no interest in such a change, particularly since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) takes over most of that type of enforcement. She also noted, however, that the language in subsection (b) of proposed AS 17.20.315 currently says, "the department shall, by regulation, adopt a schedule of fines". Therefore, if an amendment such as Representative Gruenberg was suggesting were to pass, it would require the DHSS to promulgate regulations, and so the committee may wish to weigh in with the DHSS to see if it would really be interested in such a change. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he did not want to hold the bill up, and asked Ms. Hsieh for her thoughts on how it might be best to proceed with such an amendment. MS. HSIEH again suggested that the committee check with the DHSS about such an amendment before offering it. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that he would not be offering such an amendment at this time. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 378. Number 0403 REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text previously provided]. Number 0414 CHAIR McGUIRE objected. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is still very uncomfortable with the language on page 2 that could conceivable require thousands of people in Alaska to get trained, tested, and certified, and thus be charged testing fees - perhaps expensive testing fees. He said that Amendment 1 would ensure that businesses absorb the cost of the testing fees. Additionally, he noted, if it is the businesses that are bearing the burden of the proposed requirements and fees, then they will be more likely than individual workers will be to ensure that such requirements and fees do not become unreasonable. Amendment 1 would indirectly ensure that the proposed requirements stay as narrow as possible and be fair to low-wage workers. He asked members to support Amendment 1. MS. RYAN said she did not know how the division would ever be able to track who actually pays the testing fee. REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that the DEC's would not have to undertake that burden; "presumably the employee would go to the employer, ask for compensation, [and] that would, in almost every case, be the end of it." Should a dispute on this issue arise, it could be settled in small claims court. He added, "I think employers would just end up paying for it, and we wouldn't have to worry about enforcement because they would just follow the law probably." REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said, "I think the employer is going to pay for it anyway," and noted that if an employee obtains a food-handler card, which would be good for three years, he/she then has a marketable skill. He likened Amendment 1 to putting in statute a requirement that employers pay for uniforms. He suggested that the question of who pays for the testing is something to be worked out between employer and employee. He said that he would be opposing Amendment 1. Number 0630 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered what he termed a friendly conceptual amendment to Amendment 1 such that it would not require the DEC to do anything. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said, "Sure." Number 0645 CHAIR McGUIRE noted that no one objected to the conceptual amendment to Amendment 1. Therefore, Amendment 1 was amended. REPRESENTATIVE GARA predicted that the DEC would have the authority to come up with whatever regulations it wants in order to implement "it." He reiterated his earlier comments regarding how he envisions Amendment 1, as amended, would work. The really good employers will absorb the cost to begin with, but those who are not good employers might need to be told to do so, he remarked, and opined that such an additional provision will be easily enforceable. In response to a question, he said his fear is that people who work for only $7 per hour and only work 10 hours a week will have to pay $10 for a card that allows them to hold that job. MS. RYAN said she agrees with Representative Samuels's comments, adding that other states leave it to the employer and employee to figure out who pays for the testing. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that he, too, agrees with Representative Samuels, adding, "This is no different than requiring a driver's license, or any other requirement for somebody to go to work." He indicated that he thinks Amendment 1, as amended, is unnecessary. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that although he felt that it would not be appropriate, as an employer, to be asked to pay the cost of someone's driver's license, he does feel that it would be fair to ask the employer to pay the cost of an employee's food-handler card. CHAIR McGUIRE said she tends to agree with Representatives Samuels and Holm. If a potential employee does not want to pay the fee for testing, then he/she will not apply for those jobs, which could ultimately result in a shortage of workers which in turn could cause employers to agree to pay the cost. "I don't know that we need to legislate these types of relationships," she concluded. MS. RYAN, in response to comments, reiterated that the training will be free, but the test will cost $10. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that "this" is completely unlike a driver's license; a driver's license is generally obtained for oneself, whereas a food-handler card would be obtained largely for the employer. "That's why I think the employer should pay," he concluded. CHAIR McGUIRE said, "We would hope that [the DEC] would continue to recognize that we're delegating a tremendous amount of power, and that we hope that you keep those costs down as low as possible and commiserate with the types of responsibilities that you need to have ... to ensure food safety." Number 1056 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara and Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 1, as amended. Representatives Holm, Samuels, and McGuire voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, failed by a vote of 2-3. Number 1064 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report HB 378 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 378 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|