Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/22/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB7 | |
| HB3 | |
| HB119 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 22, 2011
1:36 p.m.
1:36:31 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Cathy Munoz, Sponsor; Representative Bob
Lynn, Sponsor; Representative Lance Pruitt, Sponsor; Kendra
Kloster, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz; Jerry
Luckhaupt, Assistant Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal
Services; Kate Burkhart, Executive Director, Advisory Board
of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, Department of Health and
Social Services; Thomas Reiker, Staff, Representative Bob
Lynn; Mark Davis, Economic Development Officer, Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Orin Dym, Forensic Laboratory Manager, Department of Public
Safety Scientific Crime Detection Lab; Whitney Brewster,
Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of
Administration; Erling Johansen, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Law; Mr. Jeffrey Mittman, Executive
Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska; Mr. Ted
Leonard, Executive Director, Alaska Industrial Development
and Export Authority.
SUMMARY
HB 7 SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS AS SCHEDULE IIA
HB 7 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
CSHB 3 (STA) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with previously
published zero impact note: FN1 (DOA).
HB 119 AIDEA: PROCUREMENT; PROJECTS
CSHB 119 (EDT) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with previously
published zero impact note: FN1 (DCCED).
HB 19 SPECIAL REQUEST LICENSE PLATES
HB 19 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
1:37:30 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 7
"An Act classifying certain synthetic cannabinoids as
schedule IIA controlled substances; and providing for
an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, SPONSOR, discussed CSHB 7
(JUD). She delineated that synthetic cannabinoids were
materials that contained hallucinogenic chemicals that were
sprayed on leafy plant material. The materials were sold on
the internet and in stores under a variety of names
including K2 and Spice. To increase popularity and
distinguish the product from drugs such as LSD, the
products were marketed as a synthetic marijuana or incense.
She had first heard about Spice or K2 from the parent of a
boy who had experienced a serious adverse reaction to the
drug. She explained that within moments of inhalation the
young man experienced severe vomiting, loss of reality, the
inability to walk and talk, and violent outbursts. She read
an excerpt from a letter written by the young man:
"I only had a small amount and in less than two
minutes I was losing my perception of what was real in
every way. I lost control of my legs and I couldn't
walk. I couldn't talk. I can remember thinking to
myself that I wasn't going to come out of this
craziness and this might be how I end up dying. I
remember telling my brother to call 911 and going to
the hospital."
Representative Munoz relayed that many similar stories had
surfaced since her office began working on the bill and
that many states had enacted bans on the material.
Synthetic cannabinoids were relatively new to the United
States and were manufactured in China and Europe. Germany,
Sweden, Russia and England had all banned the substance.
Given the accessibility of the substance, its low cost, and
its difficulty to drug test, popularity was increasing in
the U.S., particularly among the youth population. She
explained that the herbal and chemical compounds commonly
produced a reaction similar to marijuana. The original
legislation would have classified the substances as
schedule IIA, which included compounds that contained
hallucinogenic substances. With the advice of the
Department of Law (DOL), the bill was amended to classify
certain synthetic cannabinoids as schedule IIIA controlled
substances. She asked a member of her staff to describe the
legislation in detail.
1:40:51 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ,
explained that they had worked with DOL and Legislative
Legal to classify the product as a schedule IIIA controlled
substance. Other synthetic THCs [tetrahydrocannabinols]
fell under the IIIA category. The bill listed the different
chemical compounds of the synthetic THC contained in the
product that were determined by the DEA [Drug Enforcement
Agency] and research conducted in other states. The
Municipality of Anchorage supported the legislation and
already had a ban on the substance. Sergeant Robert
Thompson of the Fairbanks Police Department had provided a
written statement expressing the department's support of
the bill (copy on file). The department had experienced a
problem with a driver who had been under the influence of
K2 and had experienced seizures. The department had been
unable to charge the driver with an offence as the product
was not classified as a controlled substance. The
legislation was also supported by many constituents, the
Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, the Mat-Su
Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition, the Alaska Peace
Officers Association, the Alaska Association of Chiefs of
Police, and the Women Police of Alaska.
Co-Chair Stoltze informed the committee that technical
questions about the classification of the substance could
be directed to the Department of Public Safety Scientific
Crime Detection Lab (SCDL).
Representative Gara wondered if the effects of K2 or Spice
resembled those of marijuana or hashish and whether the
penalty should be similar to one of those substances.
ORIN DYM, FORENSIC LABORATORY MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY SCIENTIFIC CRIME DETECTION LAB (via teleconference),
was not a toxicologist and could not speak to the effects
of the substances. He explained that synthetic compounds
were not natural products and had to be synthesized and
that K2 or Spice was definitely a synthetic or "designer"
drug. Marijuana was a plant material that naturally
excreted THCs. He could not speak to how the product should
be specifically classified.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, ASSISTANT REVISOR OF STATUTES, LEGISLATIVE
LEGAL SERVICES, informed the committee that the Judiciary
Committee had placed the synthetic THCs in with the other
classified THCs. Currently schedule IIIA drugs included
natural THC, the active ingredient in marijuana; and three
synthetic THCs. The committee elected to place the drugs
under the same category given their similarities and same
classification.
Representative Gara asked about the penalty for a first
conviction. Mr. Luckhaupt replied that the penalty for
distribution or manufacturing was a felony. There was no
major difference between schedules I, II, and III related
to penalties for the manufacturing or delivery of a
substance. Possession could be either a felony or a
misdemeanor, depending upon the amount of the substance. He
explained that for schedule III substances the possession
of less than three grams was a misdemeanor and above three
grams was a felony. The possession of a schedule II drug
was a felony in any amount.
1:47:12 PM
Representative Gara asked how three grams compared to the
size of a marijuana joint. Mr. Dym responded that a typical
marijuana cigarette weighed approximately 0.3 grams or one-
third of a gram and that three grams equaled approximately
nine to ten hand-rolled cigarettes.
Representative Guttenberg wondered how the substance was
manufactured. He asked whether an organic product or
chemicals for a lab were required to make the substance.
Mr. Dym responded that the process involved an exotic
chemistry that required quite a bit of knowledge, skill,
and equipment. The process was not a typical backyard
"clandestine" operation.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether there was a
specific source that provided most of the product to
Alaska. Mr. Dym replied that he did not have specific
detail and that previous testimony had traced the
production to a couple of overseas companies.
Representative Neuman asked what the prison sentence would
be for the possession of 3 grams. Mr. Luckhaupt responded
that the penalty for a class A misdemeanor was up to one
year in jail and that the maximum sentence for a class C
felony was up to 5 years in prison. There was no
presumptive term for a class C felony and typically a
person who was convicted would receive a prison sentence of
less than one year.
Representative Neuman asked about the typical sentence for
three grams of marijuana.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that DOL and the Alaska Court System
could probably provide more precise information. He had
hoped to move the bill out of committee but there had been
several fiscal note questions raised by Legislative
Finance.
Representative Wilson asked how a police officer would be
able to test whether a driver was under the influence of K2
or Spice.
Ms. Kloster replied that police departments would determine
how tests should be conducted. She explained that the drug
impacted people much differently than alcohol did. Current
drug testing methods were not able to pick up K2 or Spice
and tests for the drug were more invasive than tests for
alcohol.
Representative Wilson wondered whether a blood test would
be a reliable method to determine that a person was under
the influence of the drug. Mr. Luckhaupt responded that the
prosecution of a person who had been under the influence of
a controlled substance was always problematic. Prosecutors
attempted to prove a person's altered state based other
factors such as, possession of drugs, a person's actions,
and a blood test taken at the time of the offence. He
relayed that currently a test was not available that would
reveal the drug. The reason the person in Fairbanks
admitted that he had taken the drug was because it had not
been illegal.
1:54:35 PM
Representative Wilson wondered whether prosecution would be
based on the possession of the substance rather than on its
ingestion. Mr. Luckhaupt replied that proof that a person
was driving under the influence (DUI) would still be
required. He communicated that it was difficult but not
impossible to convict a person for being under the
influence of a controlled substance.
Representative Gara believed that in previous years the
legislature had classified too many things as felonies. He
stated that a misdemeanor was a serious crime and was the
appropriate crime level in some cases. He was concerned
about the practice of adding non-violent crimes to the
felony list. He wondered whether there was a way to make
the distribution of a significant amount of the drug a
felony and to make the possession of a small amount a
misdemeanor.
Mr. Luckhaupt responded that the Judiciary Committee tried
to reduce the penalty so that the possession of a small
amount would result in a misdemeanor. The distribution and
sale of a schedule III substance was always a felony. The
sale of a schedule IVA substance would result in a
misdemeanor. He stated that dropping the level to a
schedule IVA would be problematic given that normal THC and
the existing three synthetic THCs were classified as
schedule III substances.
Representative Gara asked whether it was possible for
distribution to remain a felony and for the possession of
more than three grams to be classified as a misdemeanor.
Mr. Luckhaupt answered in the affirmative. He explained
that a fourth or fifth degree of misconduct involving a
controlled substance could be created and that a specific
level could be specified for the synthetic THCs.
Representative Gara discussed that felony charges would be
fought much harder than misdemeanor charges and that it was
important to factor in the fairness and the costs of jail
time, and prosecution.
Co-Chair Stoltze opened public testimony.
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 7 (JUD) 27-
LS0044\T.
KATE BURKHART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY BOARD OF
ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, discussed that the board was created by statute
to advise the executive and legislative branches on issues
related to substance abuse. The board was located under the
Department of Health and Social Services but did not speak
for the department. She voiced the board's support of the
legislation. She delineated that the chemicals used in K2
were created as part of a federally funded research project
that studied the effects of THC on the human brain. The
product was made in a highly sophisticated lab and was
never intended for human consumption. The reported effects
of the product were not similar to naturally occurring
substances such as marijuana. She referred to testimony
provided by a Juneau doctor that discussed the symptoms of
a person who had been admitted to the intensive care unit.
The American Association of Poison Control Centers had
received over 3,000 calls regarding poisoning incidents in
the prior year and 400 calls in January 2011. The substance
was implicated in criminal activity, DUIs, violent crime,
hallucinations, one known death in Alaska, and at least one
suicide. The product had potential social costs not only in
the loss of life and injury, but in emergency room and
medical costs as well. The board felt strongly that the
substance should be regulated at a higher level than
marijuana given the severity of the effects of the
substance.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the substance qualified
under the medical marijuana statute that had been created
by initiative.
Ms. Burkhart replied that it did not. She emphasized that
K2 was a manmade product that was applied to a natural
plant base.
2:02:38 PM
Representative Edgmon asked whether there had been any
accounts of the substance reaching rural Alaska and whether
reports of the impact of the drug had been statewide. Ms.
Burkhart replied that the board had only heard reports from
urban areas of the state. The board was concerned about
extensive reports of abuse in the military. She relayed
that the U.S. Army had banned the substance and had court
marshaled over one dozen service members in Alaska. The
Navy had also experienced the same problem. The board was
concerned that the drug might infiltrate into rural areas
given the potential use of the drug among the state's
National Guardsmen.
Representative Neuman asked whether there were other common
drugs or substances with a similar chemical structure that
could be confused with K2. Ms. Burkhart responded that the
chemicals were very specific formulas. The bill would
regulate five very specific chemical compositions. Due to
the specificity of the bill, products that may be similar
were not included. The board appreciated that the bill was
tracking with the temporary federal regulation enacted by
the Drug Enforcement Agency and was following regulation
planned by the federal government and 13 other states. She
believed that a chemist could manufacture a substance that
was equally exciting and harmful with a different chemical
composition that would not be controlled by the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
Vice-Chair Fairclough communicated that she had a young
constituent who had experienced an adverse reaction to the
drug that had resulted in the girl's inability to move and
subsequently in an emergency room visit. She was in support
of the bill and wanted to make certain that it was done
correctly. She believed that there were only two national
labs that were able to test for the drug. One lab did urine
analysis and the other tested blood. She wondered about
economic opportunity and whether something could be
marketed through SCDL for other laboratories throughout the
state that would help fund the position and provide a
safety net for Alaskans that were having a violent reaction
to the drug. She referenced the fiscal note and wondered
whether the state could provide an engine to help other
states quantify people taking the drug. She opined that the
issue at hand was one of safety and hoped that anyone who
was having an adverse reaction to the drug would recognize
what was happening immediately. She hoped that officers
would ask the appropriate questions to identify that a
person's reaction was different than anticipated and that
medical treatment would be sought immediately.
Vice-Chair Fairclough discussed the corrected Department of
Corrections (DOC) fiscal note #2 that had been changed from
zero to almost $200,000 per person. She explained that the
range listed on the fiscal note was not very helpful to the
committee. She wondered whether there was someone present
from the department that could speak to the indeterminate
note.
2:08:21 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked Representative Munoz to contact
DOC regarding the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the co-chair staff would
contact the department.
Representative Munoz agreed that the increased fiscal note
#2 was unclear and that they would communicate with DOC.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that David Teal, Legislative
Finance, and James Armstrong, staff to Representative
Stoltze would also participate in a discussion to determine
the accuracy of the fiscal note.
Representative Costello pointed out that some of the
documentation referred to the substance as a schedule IIA
and in other areas as a schedule IIIA. She wanted to make
certain it was shown consistently as schedule IIIA.
Representative Munoz clarified that the bill had been
amended in the Judiciary Committee to change the
classification of the substance from IIA to IIIA.
Ms. Kloster relayed that the fiscal notes would all be
updated to reference the schedule IIIA classification.
Representative Costello appreciated that the legislation
had been introduced. She emphasized that the drug had hit
the streets of Anchorage with a tenacity that needed to be
addressed.
Representative Munoz expressed that testimony from her
community had moved and motivated her to help address the
problem.
Vice-Chair Fairclough moved on to fiscal note #3. The note
had a $126,800 first year impact that was followed by
$106,600. She wondered whether the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) could provide clarity on the appropriate
testing mechanism for the product, the cost, and the
expected turnaround time. Mr. Dym responded that there were
two tests available. The first was a toxicology test that
involved the analysis of blood or urine. The second test
related to the analysis of solid material possession cases.
The SCDL currently had no toxicology program and testing
was outsourced to the State of Washington. A grant from the
Alaska Highway Safety Office paid for the sample testing.
He explained that Washington subcontracted the work in the
case of synthetic cannabinoids because there were only a
few places that were able to test for the drug. The fiscal
note related to possession cases and funded the necessary
workforce to handle the increased number of submissions and
to ensure the laboratory maintained its rapid turnaround
time.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked for clarification on the
meaning of rapid turnaround time. Mr. Dym replied that most
drug cases moved to court from the time of incident in less
than 60 days and more frequently in 45 days. The lab was
turning 68 percent of the drug cases in less than 31 days
and it worked to not exceed the 45-day to 50-day window.
Vice-Chair Fairclough appreciated the excellent turnaround
time. She asked whether the fiscal note contained funding
related to tests that were outsourced to the State of
Washington. Mr. Dym replied that the fiscal note did not
include funding related to outsourced tests. He explained
that all driving offenses would be handled under the
department's existing contract and grant money.
2:14:38 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked whether the 480 cases supported
by the fiscal note were only related to possession cases.
Mr. Dym answered in the affirmative. The lab would be able
to handle up to 480 samples before increasing the
turnaround time.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked whether the fiscal note focused
only on distributors and did not cover people who
experienced adverse safety implications. Mr. Dym answered
in many cases a person suspected of driving under the
influence was also in possession of illegal material. In
such cases an analysis was conducted on a blood sample to
test for the DUI and another analysis was conducted on the
substance.
Vice-Chair Fairclough questioned whether a blood analysis
for alcohol would identify the presence of K2. Mr. Dym
replied that the test would not identify the substance. He
added that when alcohol was suspected and the blood sample
at the lab came back negative, the lab would send the
sample out for toxicology analysis.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked whether local hospitals had the
ability to perform toxicology testing that would identify
K2 in the blood of an admitted patient. Mr. Dym did not
know. He doubted that they would be able to identify the
substance given the rarity of expertise on the material.
Vice-Chair Fairclough recounted a story about a young woman
who had been found unconscious. It had only been possible
to determine what was wrong with the girl because another
youth came forward with information about a substance that
they had smoked that they had thought was marijuana. She
explained that the hospital had run toxicology tests to
identify the poison in the girl's bloodstream.
Representative Wilson asked whether the substance was
routinely tested for when a person was pulled over for a
DUI. She asked whether a sample that was sent for analysis
would automatically be tested for everything. Mr. Dym
explained that toxicology samples were initially screened
for alcohol and were then passed on for further analysis.
An officer or the prosecutor's office could request for a
sample to undergo additional toxicology testing when a
person suspected of impairment tested negative for alcohol.
He noted that the lab had just received their first
positive toxicology test.
Representative Wilson asked what it would cost to send all
samples to the State of Washington for toxicology testing.
Mr. Dym replied that the fiscal note only covered
possession cases that would go to SCDL. The lab's contract
covered up to 520 requests per year and it believed that
there was enough room to cover potential DUI samples that
could arise.
Representative Guttenberg pointed to Page 2, Sections 7-16
of the bill that described various compounds. In Section 16
the bill discussed ensuring that similar compounds were
included. He communicated that the bill appeared to focus
on specific definitions and also included language to
prevent the exclusion of certain products with slightly
altered chemical compositions. He wondered whether any
other products could potentially be included under the
description in the bill.
Mr. Dym answered that the bill included language on
geometric or positional isomers. He explained core
components had been identified that could be modified by
chemists. Language about positional isomers took care of
most items that could be similar. He noted that explaining
the chemical terms and definitions would put a slight
burden on the lab particularly in court. He delineated that
the bill would not cover a new drug but it would cover
cases in which there had been rapidly modified chemical
tweaks.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the focus was
limited to the particular drug and did not include items
that it did not intend, such as aspirin. Mr. Dym believed
that the language in the bill was specific to the class of
synthetic cannabinoids and others that were very closely
related.
Ms. Kloster discussed that the bill updated language
related to schedule III drugs that was similar to existing
language for schedule II drugs. She discussed that the
removal of one molecule would not have a significant effect
on the substance.
Representative Guttenberg wanted to make certain that the
bill did not include a substance that they did not intend
to make illegal.
Representative Doogan cited concern about fiscal note #4.
He discussed that the drug was probably not produced in
Alaska, there was no test in Alaska to determine use of the
substance, and only one positive test had been received
from an outsourced lab. He did not understand how the
fiscal note could be $126,000 and was not inclined to add a
position given the lack of evidence that there was a need.
He explained that a position could always be added at a
later time in the event that the substance turned out to be
widespread.
2:25:22 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that there would be a
conversation with his staff, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and the sponsor and regarding the fiscal
notes.
Vice-Chair Fairclough hoped to communicate that there was a
harmful substance in Alaska that looked similar to rolled
marijuana and that people should be aware that products
were labeled controlled substances for a reason. She
relayed that people should be careful and that they were
risking their lives by using the substance.
Representative Gara wondered whether prosecutions that
would occur as a result of the legislation should be
included in a fiscal note from the Public Defender Agency,
DOL, or the Office of Public Advocacy.
Co-Chair Stoltze reported that DOL was following the issue
and that there would be a conversation with OMB about the
fiscal notes.
HB 7 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to issuance of driver's licenses."
2:29:20 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough moved CSHB 3 (STA) 27-LS0010\X.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, explained that the bill
was very different from legislation that had been
introduced the previous session. Currently a person in the
country with a passport, visa, or green card that expired
the following day could still get a driver's license in
Alaska that would last for five years. He explained that HB
3 would allow the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue
a license that would match the term of the non-citizen's
legal presence document. He stated that a visa that expired
in six months time would mean that the driver's license
would expire at the same time.
THOMAS REIKER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, explained
that the Department of Homeland Security was responsible
for determining whether a foreign national could stay in
the U.S. and that it was important to ensure that
legislation would not contradict any ruling made by the
federal government. The bill would put an end to the
contradiction by allowing the DMV to issue driver's
licenses for less than five years when the length of a
person's authorized stay was less than five years. The
legislation would ensure that a person's license would
expire on the same date as their legal presence. A person
who was authorized to stay in the U.S. indefinitely would
have a license that expired in one year and it would
require annual renewal until they received a definite
length of legal stay. Annual renewal fees would be waived
and applicants could renew by mail for up to five years to
prevent an overly burdensome process for people who had an
indefinite length of authorized stay. The bill did not
include ID cards which were controlled by regulation. The
DMV had sufficient statutory authority to change the ID
cards and intended to match the terms that would be
implemented for licenses under the legislation. He
emphasized that the bill did not make changes to the
application process for driver's licenses and did not
require a person to offer proof of their authorized length
of stay to obtain a license. However, a person who applied
for a license with a visa, passport, or other immigration
document would receive a license that was linked to the
length of stay listed on the document.
2:34:20 PM
Representative Wilson wondered how the license extension
process would work by mail. Mr. Reiker responded that a
person would need to be physically present when they
applied for their initial license and that renewals could
be done by mail. He believed that a copy of extension
paperwork provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services would be sufficient documentation for a license
extension by mail.
Representative Lynn clarified that the bill was primarily
focused on visitors to the U.S., not immigrants.
Representative Wilson asked whether a person that received
an extension on their length of stay could provide the same
paperwork repeatedly to obtain future extensions of their
driver's license. Mr. Reiker confirmed that an applicant
would be required to send in documentation that provided a
new authorized length of stay or that extended the
indefinite period.
Representative Gara wondered whether a person could obtain
a license if they had submitted a valid immigration
application and were in Alaska because they were a victim
of domestic violence.
Representative Lynn responded that a person could obtain a
driver's license for the period of time they were
authorized to stay. An indefinite status would allow them
to receive a license for a one-year period. Mr. Reiker
agreed.
Representative Gara communicated that a person with a
pending application would not have obtained an authorized
period of stay.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the default was one year.
Mr. Reiker replied that the term "indefinite" was slightly
misleading. He explained that a more accurate word was
"pending." A person would be able to obtain a license for
one year if they could provide proof that they had applied
for authorized stay status. In order to extend the license
after the one-year period the person would have to provide
proof that their status had been adjudicated.
Representative Gara relayed that under the current bill
only a person with an authorized stay would be permitted to
obtain a driver's license. He believed the language would
need to be changed if the goal was to include people who
had a valid application underway. Mr. Reiker responded that
the sponsor would be okay with changing the language from
"indefinite" to "pending." He believed the change would
address the concern that had been raised.
Representative Gara explained that the language would also
need to be amended to say something other than "authorized"
because a pending application would mean that it had not
yet been authorized.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
discussed that HB 3 allowed the DMV to promulgate
regulations to shorten the length of time that it issued a
driver's license for. The zero fiscal note reflected that
the legislation would not impact the existing procedures of
the DMV. The only change would be that the license would
expire at a different time than the standard five-year
period. Currently the DMV required proof of legal name,
date of birth, resident address, and social security number
(if one existed). Immigrants would typically present the
DMV with a permanent resident card and international
visitors typically provided a passport and accompanying
visa. The documents were commonly seen at the DMV and under
the legislation a license would expire at the time of the
legal document expiration. She believed it was important to
note that the DMV received and honored letters from the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
on a regular basis. The documents would continue to be
honored by the division. She explained that there was a
specific category for victims who were granted temporary
legal stay while their cases were under investigation and
that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and law
enforcement were familiar with the process. She had met
with the USCIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
regarding the specific topic and felt satisfied that
victims were protected and would not face immediate
deportation.
2:43:39 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough believed she had attended the same
meeting. Ms. Brewster replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Fairclough relayed that she had met with law
enforcement and the federal government during the interim
to discuss concerns she had expressed about the bill the
prior session. She had been assured that a victim of
domestic violence or sex trafficking would be given a valid
residency status for a temporary period within 24 hours to
48 hours. She believed the particular issue had been
sufficiently managed. She wondered why the State Affairs
Committee had changed language in the bill from "shall" to
"may." She also asked DOL about the definition of
"indefinite" in regards to the bill.
Mr. Reiker noted that DMV had some concern that the five-
year length of time was laid out in statute and that the
division was not authorized to promulgate regulations for
driver's licenses. The sponsor did not want to be
restrictive of DMV and decided that the bill should read
"may" and not "shall." Representative Paul Seaton and
others had expressed concerns that the bill would be overly
burdensome on people with an indefinite or pending
authorized stay. In order to address the concerns language
had been included to allow the division to waive renewal
fees and to enable people to complete the renewal process
by mail.
Vice-Chair Fairclough read from the original legislation,
"If a period of authorized stay is indefinite the
department may not issue the license with the validity of
greater than a year." She explained that the original
premise was for the DMV to have the ability to issue a
license for anywhere up to a year and the current version
of the legislation would give individuals a one-year
license regardless of their length of stay in Alaska. Mr.
Reiker replied that she was correct. Their office learned
in a discussion with U.S. Immigration and Customs Services
for the State of Alaska that the office provided 30-day to
90-day extensions to people with indefinite status. They
did not want people in the middle of the process to be
required to apply for a new license every 30 days.
Additionally, they did not want the department to take on
the cost of issuing a new license every 30 days.
Vice-Chair Fairclough emphasized that the department had
expressed its need for flexibility around its ability to
determine the length of time a license would be issued. She
thought the intent of the bill was to match licenses to
other documentation. She was not opposed to the language
and she did not want a person who had applied for a valid
stay in the U.S. to have to go through a hurdle every 30
days and did not want to burden the department, however, a
mandate that required the department to issue one-year
licenses would deny the it flexibility. She repeated her
earlier question to DOL regarding the definition of the
term "indefinite" for the purposes of the legislation.
2:50:27 PM
ERLING JOHANSEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), responded that in relation to the
bill the term "indefinite" meant "non-finite" terms. A
pending application and a continuing authorization were
both examples of a non-finite term.
Vice-Chair Fairclough remarked that for Webster's the term
meant continuing on and on, which was different than the
definition that had been presented to the committee. The
provided definition indicated that there was something
pending that was awaiting an action that would determine
when the indefinite period ended.
Mr. Reiker agreed with the interpretation. He also believed
that their Webster's working definition for indefinite was
"not definite." He understood that it could also be
interpreted to mean "in perpetuity."
Representative Guttenberg noted the Department of
Administration's zero fiscal note. He wondered what it
would take to familiarize DMV employees with documentation
and whether staff would phone the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) [now called United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services] or go online in order
to authorize the issuance of a new driver's license. He
wondered how the department was prepared to handle the new
procedures that would be required under the legislation.
Ms. Brewster responded that the DMV was currently receiving
immigration documents and that there would not be a
substantial change from the current process. The change
would be to the expiration date of the license that would
match the date on the provided documents. The training that
would be required would be minimal and could be absorbed in
the current DMV budget. She elaborated that DMV had a
strong relationship with USCIS and they would have no
problem asking for assistance if necessary.
Representative Edgmon discussed that the bill could impact
Alaskan communities like Sand Point, King Cove, Akutan, and
Unalaska, in a way that had not been anticipated. He asked
how the DMV would handle communities that did not have
year-round DMV service. Ms. Brewster noted that Unalaska
was the only community listed that had a year-round DMV.
She did not believe a substantial change would occur in the
areas where there were a number of cannery workers. She
explained that the requirements to obtain a driver's
license were in statute and would not change. The
requirements included proof of legal name, date of birth,
residence, and social security card (if one existed). The
only significant change would be that a person's license
would expire at the time of the legal stay listed on the
authorization documentation.
2:56:35 PM
MR. JEFFREY MITTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF ALASKA (via teleconference), testified
that the union's concern was related to the potential for
differential treatment of immigrants. The union believed
that the bill raised constitutional issues related to the
equal protection rights of immigrants. Immigrants were a
suspect class under most federal discrimination law and
would receive a different and second-class type of license.
There could be a reasonable government interest in
providing the differential class of license in the event
that the term of stay was related to a person's safety,
ability to drive, or the DMV mandate of issuing licenses.
He explained that because the purpose of a driver's license
was to identify that a person was a safe driver the idea of
a second-class type of license raised significant concerns
that a court may have contention with.
Representative Gara was concerned that a person who had a
valid application in for legal presence in the U.S. would
not be covered under the bill's "authorized stay" language.
Mr. Mittman responded that the union believed that there
were some language problems with the bill and the problem
at hand put the DMV in the position of making a
determination that would be best made by a federal INS or
immigration agency. He explained that it was an open
question that did not relate to a person's ability to
safely drive a vehicle or understand road laws. The union
believed that the new law would deny an individual the
right to obtain a license under a procedure that all other
individuals were entitled to.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered whether Mr. Mittman saw any
reference to the immigration issue in the legislation
before the committee. Mr. Mittman responded that the issue
was related to an individual's length of stay. Information
had been provided that pertained to lawful presence
requirements that many states could constitutionally
implement. However, the union believed that it would be a
reasonable assumption that a differential type of license
would be related to a person's immigration status. He
explained that presumably every U.S. citizen was able to
stay in the country for an indefinite period that was until
their death. Presuming the intention of the bill was to
provide differential licenses to people who may not be
citizens or lawful permanent residents the presumption
would be that the majority of the people would be in some
sort of immigrant status.
Vice-Chair Fairclough discussed that DMV was specifically
required to provide a license for five years and that there
were reasons that the division might want to limit a
driver's license that were outside of immigration issues.
She explained that the law before the committee was taking
a step to meet the specific need and that she had also
introduced a piece of legislation that worked to provide
DMV with the flexibility to issue a license for a period
that was different than five years. Mr. Mittman answered
that there could be a constitutionally appropriate and non-
discriminatory reason for having a differential license.
His concern was that as HB 3 was currently drafted the bill
was susceptible to discriminatory treatment that could
violate federal constitutional standards.
Representative Wilson did not understand why there would be
an objection to the issuance of licenses for a different
period of time. She recognized that it would be one thing
to issue a license that looked notably different from the
standard license, but that everyone in the room had a
different expiration date on their license.
Mr. Mittman replied that the change made by the State
Affairs Committee that lessened the burden on renewing a
license was an improvement on the original bill. The
differential treatment was related the more burdensome
process that individuals who could be of immigrant status
would have to undergo on an annual basis. Additionally,
there was concern about regulatory processes that may
provide discretion for a DMV employee to require a person
who they thought looked like an immigrant to provide
differential documentation.
3:04:16 PM
Representative Joule asked whether a citizen in the United
States had a bit more of an advantage than a non-citizen.
Mr. Mittman remarked that there were constitutionally
permissible instances where citizens had certain rights,
privileges, or opportunities that non-citizens did not. The
union believed that the federal government would not find
it appropriate to treat an immigrant differentially in the
case of the issuance of a driver's license.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered whether a driver's license
was a right or a privilege. Mr. Mittman replied that in
many states a driver's license was a privilege. However,
once a state instituted policies or procedures for
individuals obtaining licenses, there could not be
inappropriately discriminatory processes for providing the
privilege.
Vice-Chair Fairclough believed that driving in the state of
Alaska was a privilege.
Representative Wilson noted that a problem was created
because a driver's license was used as a legal document for
things unrelated to driving.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
Representative Gara asked whether a person that fled a
domestic violence situation or persecution in their home
country and had a valid application in for legal presence
in the U.S. would be covered under the bill's "authorized
stay" language.
Mr. Johansen understood that a person who was in the U.S.
legally that experienced trouble providing proof of
identity could go to the appropriate federal agency for
temporary authorization or application pending paperwork
that would be accepted by the DMV. He explained that his
understanding was in part based on a meeting he attended
with state and federal agencies earlier in the year.
Ms. Brewster understood that under the legislation a person
that applied for legal status from USCIS would receive a
pending letter and that the DMV would issue a license for
one year as required in the indeterminate section of the
bill.
Representative Gara was happy provided that the department
made a commitment to its understanding of the issue. Ms.
Brewster replied that was her commitment to the committee.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the zero fiscal note.
3:10:55 PM
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 3 (STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 3 (STA) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with previously published zero impact
note: FN #1 (DOA).
HOUSE BILL NO. 119
"An Act relating to the procurement of supplies,
services, professional services, and construction for
the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority; relating to the definition of 'own' for the
economic development account; relating to the
definitions of 'development project', 'plant',
'facility', and 'project' for the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority; and providing for an
effective date."
3:11:54 PM
MARK DAVIS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY, discussed that HB 119
worked to modernize the Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority (AIDEA). The bill allowed the agency to
have the same procurement provisions as other public
corporations in the state, including the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation. The agency would also be permitted to
own a percentage of a project it developed through the
means of a corporation or a limited liability company
(LLC). The previous year the legislature had allowed AIDEA
to own a percentage of a project; however, DOL determined
that the percentage did not clearly provide the agency with
the power to be a member of an LLC.
Mr. Davis discussed that the agency also sought to expand
the types of projects it could undertake. Currently AIDEA
could do natural resources, energy, tourism infrastructure,
and industrial development projects. The agency was
provided the opportunity to invest in a health care
facility that would be leased to the federal government;
however, DOL determined that AIDEA was not authorized to
invest in a health clinic. Additionally, AIDEA was asked to
construct a facility that it would build and lease to the
Coast Guard, but it was denied the ability to build a
federal facility. Other expansions would be for community
public purpose, transportation, and prototype commercial
applications. The agency had conducted a survey of other
economic development authorities throughout the U.S. and
had discovered that most of the agencies had the ability to
support new technologies or new prototypes as a way to use
state development capital to promote the diversification of
the state economy. The legislation added clarification that
AIDEA could build roads. The current statute allowed the
agency to build a road to a natural resource development,
such as the DeLong Mountain Transportation System for the
Red Dog Mine; however, it was not clear whether it could
build a road that was not directly lined up with a project.
He explained that if the agency could get revenues from the
road it would do so. The caveat was that anything built on
the transportation of roads would need to pay for itself,
be a project that was bondable, and would have to meet
economic development goals; therefore it could not be used
for general transportation.
3:15:24 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough moved CSHB 119 (EDT) 27-GH1745\M.
Representative Gara asked whether the legislation would
allow AIDEA to underwrite and fund something like the Knik
Arm crossing. Mr. Davis did not believe that it would. The
agency's current reserves limited bonding for any
particular project to between $250 million and $300
million. He believed that the bridge would be much more
expensive. The agency's intent was to build economic
development projects; therefore, the transportation of the
roads it would build would lead to an economic development
project that would be tied to one of the agency's stated
purposes.
Representative Gara referred to the "omnibus energy" bill
passed in the previous session that created a revolving
loan fund to help private businesses upgrade their energy
efficiencies. He believed that the fund had been placed
under AIDEA but not under the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
that governed energy efficiency matters. He wondered
whether AIDEA would have any objection to moving the
revolving loan fund over to AEA. Mr. Davis replied that the
fund belonged under AEA and that AIDEA was not concerned
with the energy conservation efforts that were conducted by
its sister agency.
Representative Gara wondered why AIDEA should be exempt
from the state procurement code. Mr. Davis replied that the
agency was not looking for a total exemption. The board
could adopt regulations through a public process when the
agency worked on a development project with another entity
like the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. A person who
had a disagreement with the procurement would be required
to file a protest with the board of AIDEA and not with the
Departments of Transportation and Public Facilities or
Administration. The process would be faster given that the
board would have the expertise on what it wished to
purchase. He believed that the streamlined system was
better for the agency and for protestors.
MR. TED LEONARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY (via teleconference),
discussed that the bill worked to provide AIDEA with more
tools that would help it to be effective when it worked on
development projects with the private sector.
Representative Neuman liked the type of legislation. He
referenced the Alaska Administrative Procedure Act and
procurement codes. He wondered about the "basic sideboards"
of the maximum funding that was available. Mr. Davis
responded that AS 36.30.170(b) referenced on Page 2, Line
11, would require a bidder to have business license as
proof that they conducted business in the state. The bill
dealt with procurement for development finance and required
an agency to request bids when they wanted to purchase
items such as computers or desks. He relayed that there
would not be changes to the prevailing wage requirements.
Representative Neuman asked whether there was a maximum
amount of money that AIDEA could spend to develop a
corporation. Mr. Davis replied that the limits were based
on the amount of available cash for a project and could
vary depending upon the amount of reserve cash. He
discussed that there was an open process and the board was
required to approve spending. The current buying authority
was approximately $250 million. Additionally, the agency
was required to seek legislative approval for any bond over
$10 million and approval from local communities for any
bond over $6 million. There was a $400 million annual limit
on the number of bonds AIDEA could issue.
Representative Neuman was glad to hear AIDEA had at least
$150 million. He asked whether manufacturing would fall
under the "project" definition on Page 3, Section 6, which
read "a plant or facility used or intended for use in
connection with making, processing, preparing, transporting
or producing…" He wondered whether manufacturing was a
factor when AIDEA looked at different development plants
and the development of Alaska's resources. Mr. Davis
responded that AIDEA was formed as an industrial
development authority and had always been focused on job
development under AS 44.88.010. He expressed that
manufacturing was one of the agency's goals when it was
available.
3:24:31 PM
Representative Doogan asked about the cash limit of the
agency. Mr. Davis replied that there were two ways to look
at the cash limit. First, under AIDEA's Loan Participation
Program, loans were capped at a maximum of $20 million per
loan. The amount the agency could invest in a particular
project was based on its cash reserves and it was required
to seek legislative approval for any bond over $10 million.
Additionally, the agency was required to obtain board
approval, hold a public hearing, file a finance plan, and
to obtain the approval of local communities for any bond
exceeding $6 million.
Representative Doogan understood that there were legal
definitions about how the LLCs would work. He was concerned
about the state's legal and factual liability in the event
that a project under one of AIDEA's LLCs went "belly-up."
Mr. Davis replied that AIDEA's bonds for a project were not
moral obligations of the state by statute. Any recourse on
a bond would go to AIDEA or to the project itself if it
were a revenue bond. The use of an LLC to effectuate a
development project would mean that anyone seeking recourse
would go against the assets of the LLC first and would have
to show there was an ability to go beyond that by "piercing
the corporate veil." Usually when an LLC went bankrupt the
assets were those of the LLC. The agency was seeking to
coordinate with other investors to leverage its funds and
as they looked at determining what percentage of a project
they would undertake, the developers notified AIDEA that
they would need a legal structure in order to conduct
business with the agency. The LLC would be the same as any
other LLC on the market and the intention of the agency was
to work with other investors. He elaborated that there
would also be insurance on an LLC, therefore, there would
be various pots of money available to potential creditors.
Representative Doogan remarked that there was a fish plant
in his district that had been substantially financed by
state funds and had essentially gone through the same
process. He wasn't certain what the project cost the State
of Alaska. Mr. Davis responded that the fish plant cost the
state approximately $50 million and was liquidated. He
explained that the occurrence was exactly the reason for
the legislation. The purpose of private partners in a
development project was to determine whether other people
in the industry were interested in investing their own
capital in a project because they believed there would be a
financial gain. The agency was required by statute to make
a return on the invested capital and an LLC structure would
ensure that AIDEA would be working with other partners. He
opined that one of the reasons the seafood plant had been
unsuccessful was due to the absence of sufficient partners.
Representative Doogan wondered whether it would still be
possible for AIDEA to venture into operations like the fish
plant or whether the legislation would require the
participation by private individuals under an LLC. Mr.
Davis answered that under the legislation AIDEA would
retain the ability to build a development project on its
own. The agency's strategic plan also called for it to work
with private capital. The legislation would allow AIDEA to
create an LLC in order for it to own a percentage of a
project with other private capital. The goal of the agency
was to leverage its funds to do the most that it could. He
believed the ability for AIDEA to work with private
partners moved in the direction that Representative Doogan
wanted.
Representative Doogan was trying to ensure that there would
not be an eventuality in which the same mistake or enhanced
mistakes were made by the introduction of other financial
structures. He did not believe that was being offered in
the legislation. He believed that AIDEA had specified that
although it had the ability to work alone that it would
prefer to work with other partners.
Mr. Davis responded that it was necessary to look each
particular financial situation. For example, the board
could discern that it was good for the economy and that a
partnership was not necessary for it to invest in a small
and inexpensive development project that had new
technology. As the risk level and cost went up it was
prudent to use another legal vehicle such as a corporation
or an LLC and to have other partners as well. He believed
the safety valve was in the seven-member board. The tool
would help to mitigate risk, increase leverage, and achieve
results.
3:31:48 PM
Representative Edgmon asked whether the AIDEA board would
always be the board of directors in a partnership
situation. Mr. Davis replied that members could be in
control of the LLC or they could elect a managing partner
that would make them more passive investors. In most cases
the agency would take on a more passive roll and would
elect a managing member from the private sector that had
expertise in the specific type of project. Corporate
governance would allow members to place managing restraints
on the managing member related to spending caps, what could
be done on the project, and any major structural change to
the project.
Representative Joule discussed that Alaska was in a
relatively good financial position compared to the rest of
the U.S. He referenced potential military and coastal
infrastructure that may need to happen through the
Department of Defense or other. He wondered whether the
state's strong financial position encouraged the federal
government and other businesses to look to Alaska as a good
business opportunity. Mr. Davis responded that AIDEA
floated some bonds in December 2010 for $60 million and he
had received calls from several interested brokers in other
states. He explained that AIDEA's bonds had a AA rating,
which was currently rare. Secondly, AIDEA had been in
contact with a bank in New York the prior week that was
potentially interested in doing business with the agency.
He believed that the interest demonstrated that Alaska was
a good place to do business based on the national
landscape.
Co-Chair Thomas provided a hypothetical example of a mine
that was unable to afford an access road. He wondered
whether financing through an AIDEA LLC would entitle it to
partial ownership of the mine. Mr. Davis responded that
AIDEA would need to determine what the appropriate
structure would be for the project. The bill would provide
more options, however, the project could potentially be
structured like the public Red Dog Mine road that was
controlled and owned by the agency. In other cases it may
have been prudent to share the risk of the entire project.
The bill provided the agency with the flexibility to make
the appropriate decision for public policy and financial
reasons.
Co-Chair Thomas noted that there were always "political
monsters in the closet" that had undisclosed interests. He
opined that under the guise of good public policy a road
could be built that just happened to go directly by a mine
that was unable to afford to build its own road. Mr. Davis
replied that AIDEA's goal was to look for financial return,
therefore, when it built a road that was used by other
people it was important to determine how they would
contribute to the cost in a way that was consistent with
what the agency helped them with.
Co-Chair Thomas hoped that people would be honest with the
agency. He saw the potential for there to be the state
funded development of roads that led to resources that may
provide no benefit to the state. He opined that there were
legislators that thought mineral royalties were low and
that the state should build "road favors." He was concerned
about the potential for a similar scenario to occur.
Mr. Davis discussed that AIDEA would have to be certain
that a road could pay the bonds or they would not build the
road.
Co-Chair Thomas appreciated the upfront detail. He referred
to a Department of Transportation (DOT) road development
that had a "golden goose" in the form of a mine along the
road.
3:38:26 PM
Representative Guttenberg could see the benefits that could
come as a result of the legislation. He asked whether there
was potential for conflict to occur with the existing
planning processes of DOT, STIP [Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program], or a local community. He wondered
whether the bill required AIDEA to ensure that it would not
interfere or be in conflict with another statewide planning
process for an energy project, road, or other.
Mr. Davis responded that there were three constraints.
First, statute required the agency to obtain the consent of
a local community. Secondly, the board of AIDEA had to meet
and agree on a project in a public process. Thirdly, bond
investors wanted to make certain that a project had support
and that it was not in conflict with any other plans that
would cause the bond market to react negatively.
Representative Doogan referred to an earlier comment
related to financing roads. He wondered what was meant by
"a road that might not line up." Mr. Davis explained that
the DeLong Mountain Transportation System supported a
specific development project because it was directly
connected to the Red Dog Mine. Without the legislation it
was unclear whether AIDEA would be allowed to build a road
that supported an oil drilling area that did not connect
directly with each rig.
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSHB 119 (EDT) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 119 (EDT) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously published zero
impact note: FN 1 (DCCED).
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to special request registration
plates; and providing for an effective date."
HB 19 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:42 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 3 Explanation of Changes.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 State by State Analysis.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Legal Opinion dated 012811.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Sponsor Statement.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB7.supporting testimony.2.10.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Support Letters.2.10.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.NCSL Research Report.10.5.10.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Memo regarding changes to CS.2.11.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Leg Research Report.Other states penalities.2.8.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Article.K2 and Spice_Straight Tox.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Article.DEA Press Release on Synthetic Materials.11.24.10.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Article.ADN Article.Assembly outlaws chemical.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| CS HB 7 (JUD) Sponsor Statement.2.10.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 19 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Sample License Plates.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Legal Research.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 119 Sectional Analysis CS EDT.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/15/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 AIDEA Bill Information Sheet and letter.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/15/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 119 |
| HB7CS(JUD)NEWFN-LAW-02-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB3 ACLU Letter.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |