Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/17/1999 01:03 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 17, 1999
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to controlled substances and to the possession and
distribution of certain chemicals."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes
relating to certain repealed law as recommended by the revisor of
statutes; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as
recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: DRUGS: POSSESSION OF PRECURSOR CHEMICALS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) BRICE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 18 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
2/17/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 426
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3466
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 3.
NANCY A. BUKAR, State Government Counsel
Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association (NDMA)
1150 Connecticut Avenue Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202)429-9260
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 3 on behalf of NDMA.
STEVEN M. MISTER, Associate General Counsel and
Deputy Director of Government Relations
Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association (NDMA)
1150 Connecticut Avenue Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202)429-9260
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 3 on behalf of NDMA.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 11200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907)465-4322
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 3 on behalf of the Department
of Public Safety.
FIRST SARGEANT DAVID HUDSON, Central Office
Division of Alaska State Troopers
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Telephone: (907)269-5655
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 3 on behalf of the Division of
Alaska State Troopers.
ANNIE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Juneau Legal Services Section
Criminal Division of Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907)465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 3 on behalf of the
Criminal Division of the Department of Law.
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907)465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 3 on behalf of the
Legislative Legal Counsel.
WILDA RODMAN, Legislative Assistant
for Representative Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 511
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-465-2812
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 3 on behalf of
Representative Therriault.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, James and Murkowski. Representatives
Croft and Kerttula arrived at 1:06 p.m. Representative Rokeburg
arrived at 1:13 p.m. Representative Green arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 3 - DRUGS: POSSESSION OF PRECURSOR CHEMICALS
CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Representative Brice, sponsor of HB 3, to
present the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, Alaska State Legislature, presented the
following sponsor statement:
Currently, state statutes prohibit law enforcement from
arresting people making methamphetamines until they are
actually producing a drug. The chemicals involved are
dangerous, as is the production process. HB 3 will
criminalize the possession of certain chemicals used in
manufacturing methamphetamines, giving law enforcement the
ability to be proactive when fighting methamphetamine
production in Alaska. This legislation also requires stores
to notify authorities when a customer purchases large
quantities of the chemicals that are used to make
methamphetamines.
Given the volatility of the production process, passage of
this bill will also protect the lives and property in the
neighborhoods where a drug lab may go into operation. The
sponsor was asked to create this legislation by employees in
the Department of Public Safety who were unable to make an
arrest until a methamphetamine lab started cooking a drug.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained that the problem with
methamphetamines in Alaska has been expanding beyond drug usage to
include the dangerous conditions in methamphetamine laboratories.
Some of these labs, he emphasized, have been likened to the "worst
hazardous material dump sites." He reported that law enforcement
officers have to take extreme precaution when raiding these
facilities due to the high volatility of the chemicals used. A
drug laboratory cannot currently be broken down, he stated, until
a product has actually been produced.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE defined the goals of HB 3 to be as follows:
creating two lists of chemicals used specifically in the creation
of methamphetamine, and giving law enforcement the ability to
determine whether or not an individual possessing these chemicals
intends to produce methamphetamine. He stated his belief that most
of the concerns regarding potential communication problems between
state and federal officials have been addressed; however,
additional recommendations brought out in upcoming testimonies may
need to be taken into consideration.
Number 0468
NANCY A. BUKAR, State Government Counsel, Nonprescription Drug
Manufacturers Association (NDMA), testified via teleconference from
Washington, D.C. on behalf of NDMA. She referred the committee to
handouts faxed to Representative Brice's office. She detailed some
of the drugs that could be covered by HB 3, including everyday
cough, cold and sinus remedies such as Sudafed, Tylenol Cold
Medicine and Actifed. Additionally, a number of weight loss aids
would be covered by this legislation, including Acutrim and
Dexatrim. The manufacturers of these medications, she added, have
concerns as to how this legislation would affect availability of
these products.
MS. BUKAR pointed to existing federal legislation, namely, the
Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 (MCA). She
referred the members to the handout which outlines the details of
that legislation. At that time, she added, there were a number of
changes to the distribution of products containing ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine (PPA). The distributors
are now required to report all suspicious orders to the local
office of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),
as soon as they receive the order, before completion of the sale,
or as soon as practical thereafter. She indicated, from
experience, that distributors take suspicious order reporting very
seriously, and keep very detailed records on those sales.
MS. BUKAR further explained that if these distributors were not
already registered with the DEA as controlled substance handlers,
they must obtain a chemical list registration from the DEA. In
order to obtain that registration, she added, applicants much go
through detailed background checks, as well as inspection of their
facilities to make sure they have adequate security and storage
space. When selling these products, the distributor must verify
the identity of the customer with a photo identification, usually
a state-issued driver's license. Finally, she stated, distributors
must ensure adequate security, and employees must inform security
personnel of diversion by theft or loss of these products.
MS. BUKAR described the "safe harbor exemption" that covers
products containing pseudoephedrine and PPA under 3 grams in each
package. In addition, the package must contain only two tablets
per blister, which would ensure that the packages are quite small.
Those retailers that only sell "safe harbor" products, she added,
are exempt from the requirements under the Comprehensive
Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 (MCA).
MS. BUKAR went on to present the model language developed by the
Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association (NDMA) to help
states combat the methamphetamine problem. She informed the
committee that nine states have adopted language mirroring the NDMA
model language, including the two states with the worst
methamphetamine problem (California and Missouri). She said, "The
model language that we have drafted punishes for possession with
intention to manufacture methamphetamine, similar to the language
in Alaska House Bill 3 in the beginning of the Act." This language
distinguishes between legitimate use of over-the-counter medicines
and diversion activities, giving consumers access to these products
without feeling punished for purchasing them.
MS. BUKAR referred the committee to the proposed amendment to HB 3
included in their handouts. It is the recommendation of NDMA that
Section 11.71.195 (Exempted Drugs) be struck in its entirety. They
further recommend the following addition to Section 17.30.090:
(d) The provisions of Section 17.30.090 (a)-(c) shall not
apply to any substance that may be lawfully sold over the
counter without a prescription under the federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301-392).
MS. BUKAR emphasized that if HB 3 was passed as written without
this amendment, it would result in massive record keeping required
by all distributors and retailers, no matter how small they might
be. Convenience stores, for example, may chose to avoid this kind
of burden by not selling these products, which may result in
increased prices and decreased availability for the legitimate
consumer. She stressed that NDMA recognizes the problems involved
with methamphetamine, and they have worked very hard with
Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the DEA and local law
enforcement to combat this problem.
Number 1033
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if NDMA would support striking out the entire
recording requirement found in the bill in 17.30.090.
MS. BUKAR stated that there are some changes in the "exempted
drugs" section that still could cause some problems. As drafted
now, over-the-counter products would not be exempt from subsequent
proposals for record keeping. They do, however, support the
removal of any record-keeping provisions, she added.
CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that by deleting the entire section
17.30.090, the amendment offered by NDMA would have to be inserted
elsewhere.
Number 1115
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired if NDMA would support HB 3 if the
proposed amendment was accepted.
MS. BUKAR confirmed that NDMA would definitely support the bill
under those conditions, and encouraged the committee to do so also.
Number 1147
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that there has been difficulty in the
past with state law enforcement getting the reporting information
from federal law enforcement. He asked whether this has been a
problem in other states as well.
MS. BUKAR reported, from past experience, that the DEA has been
working to contact state narcotic enforcement agents. She added
that NDMA is in the process of contacting DEA as well to inform
them of their concern with this problem.
Number 1193
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI sought clarification as to whether NDMA
had a part in drafting HB 3 or if their model language is included
somehow in this particular legislation.
MS. BUKAR specified that their model language has been adopted, in
whole or in part, in nine states, and the federal bill was worked
on by a number of different trade associations.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to how the nine states that
had adopted this model language have handled the record-keeping
issue.
MS. BUKAR explained that these states decided that record-keeping
would be too much of a burden on distributors, retailers and the
Department of Public Safety. She emphasized that there are
literally thousands of products that contain these various
chemicals.
Number 1287
CHAIRMAN KOTT directed attention to the list of type I and type II
chemicals. He wondered if these lists would have to be updated at
some point based on new synthetic drugs becoming available.
MS. BUKAR acknowledged that the NDMA asks that same question of
themselves every day. She explained, "The people who manufacture
methamphetamine are amazing in their skills of finding new ways to
manufacture methamphetamine." In the early 1990s, she added, they
were only using ephedrine, and they were actually told by the DEA
chemists that there was no way any other drugs could be used.
After that, however, pseudoephedrine began showing up in the
methamphetamine labs. She indicated that it would be very
difficult to forecast what methamphetamine cooks will come up with
next, and informed the committee that there are many different
recipes containing various chemicals. Even with limiting all of
those chemicals, she stressed, someone who is desperate enough to
make and use this drug will find a way to do it.
CHAIRMAN KOTT reported that he had heard producing methamphetamine
was "about as easy as making chocolate chip cookies."
MS. BUKAR said it wasn't quite that simple; however, there are
recipes on the Internet that make it sound very easy. It is
important to remember, she emphasized, that the chemicals used in
combination to make methamphetamine are extremely dangerous, and
the clean-up costs for this chemical waste can reach into "the five
figures," depending upon the size of the laboratory. She reported
hearing methamphetamine could even be made in the bathtub, but
stressed that this combination is volatile no matter how it is
manufactured.
Number 1413
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT called attention to Ms. Bukar's previous
statement regarding striking section 11.71.195. He asked if she
meant striking the amendment to the section or the entire section.
MS. BUKAR indicated that it was the position of NDMA to strike the
entire section, and that adding their model language would still
allow law enforcement to go after the methamphetamine criminals
without having retailers carry the burden of reporting and
record-keeping.
Number 1444
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT observed that 11.71.195 and the NDMA proposed
amendment (d) did similar things, and he wondered what exactly they
preferred about their section (d) amendment.
MS. BUKAR called attention to the sentence in 11.71.195 that says
"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a". She felt that
this suggested that all the listed chemicals carried the reporting
and record-keeping requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed, but added, "that provides the phrase,
and if we don't change it, then 11.71.195 will stay the same,
without that 'except', and provide for the exemption if exempted
under federal law." He felt that getting rid of the reporting
provision in its entirety would require keeping 11.71.195, because
without it there would be no exemption anywhere. He supported
removing the "except" phrase, but asked if there were any other
provisions in 11.71.195 that NDMA would like to see "tightened up."
MS. BUKAR reiterated that it was their preference to remove the
reporting and record-keeping statutes in their entirety. This
would still provide an exemption for those products legitimately
sold over-the-counter.
Number 1543
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT observed that there are two options: either
using the NDMA amendment or keeping 11.71.195 the same. He sought
clarification as to whether there was any difference between the
phrase "which is explicitly exempt from criminal penalty under
federal law" and the phrase "may be lawfully sold
over-the-counter." He believed these phrases do much of the same
thing, but wondered if there was a nuance that he was missing.
MS. BUKAR felt the phrase "explicitly exempt from criminal penalty
under federal law" may be referring to the "safe harbor products"
that she had previously mentioned. She did concur that there was
not a great difference between the two phrases.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired if the second sentence in 11.71.195,
referring to 21 U.S.C. 301-392, was almost identical to their
amendment.
MS. BUKAR said, "I think so. One thing that I am concerned about
though is making sure that your law enforcement officials still
would retain the authority to prosecute for possession of
over-the-counter products that are found in a lab."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that the phrasing was crucial, because
these chemicals would not be exempt if the other element of intent
to manufacture was found.
MS. BUKAR clarified that the change would need to exempt
over-the-counter products from the reporting and record-keeping
burden, and yet still allow for prosecution of possession with
intent to manufacture.
Number 1641
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA questioned if keeping the "except as
otherwise provided in this chapter" phrase would cover
criminalization of possessing these chemicals in an attempt to
manufacture methamphetamine.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern that removing the
record-keeping clause and the language in 11.72.295 would somehow
cause a problem in allowing people to have nonprescription drugs
due to the legislation being taken too broadly.
Number 1718
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the committee had the model
statute that the last witness mentioned.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded that a number of different statutes
have been implemented across the states. The bill before the
committee, he explained, was based on the Oklahoma and Arkansas
statutes, as well as a small portion of the United States code, and
did not represent the uniform statute that Ms. Bukar alluded to.
MS. BUKAR indicated her willingness to provide a copy of the NDMA
model methamphetamine Act if needed.
CHAIRMAN KOTT directed the witness to fax the document to the
committee as soon as possible.
Number 1808
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the Oklahoma and Arkansas Acts were
modeled after the NDMA model.
MS. BUKAR said that Arkansas, California, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina and Washington have
already enacted laws that punish those with intent to manufacture
methamphetamine. She was not familiar with the Oklahoma
legislation, but she volunteered to look at it for the committee.
Number 1842
CHAIRMAN KOTT requested that Ms. Bukar draw some comparisons
between the Alaskan proposed legislation and their model
methamphetamine Act.
MS. BUKAR noted that she has not had time to thoroughly review the
two Acts and compare them, but she indicated her willingness to do
so. She deferred further questions on comparison to her colleague,
and left the teleconference momentarily to summon him.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Chairman Kott if his intention was
for the committee to rewrite the bill during the current meeting.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said no, and indicated that the intention was simply
to review and compare to see if anything needed to be added to the
bill.
Number 1912
STEVEN M. MISTER, Associate General Counsel and Deputy Director of
Government Relations, Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers
Association (NDMA), testified via teleconference from Washington,
D.C. He pointed out that their model legislation is very similar
to what they are proposing in Alaska; however, it goes about things
differently. He reiterated that the legislation punishes the
possession of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine
(PPA) with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine.
Additionally, some of the other nine states with this legislation
have added a section punishing those who sell the product knowing
that it is going to be used for methamphetamine. This has been
particularly useful in the Midwestern United States; law
enforcement has staged raids on truck stops and other places that
sell these products to undercover agents who specifically tell the
distributor that their purpose is to go home and make
methamphetamine.
MR. MISTER addressed concerns the NDMA had about the Alaska
legislation as recorded. Under federal law, he explained,
retailers are exempted from reporting and record-keeping. It was
the intention of NDMA, he acknowledged, to carve out the
over-the-counter retailers from record-keeping and recording, but,
at the same time, addressing possession with intent to manufacture.
Specifically, he addressed the language of "except as otherwise
provided in this chapter, a", indicating it should be left in. He
stressed that it is their intent to prosecute an individual that
buys an over-the-counter drug legitimately and then goes home and
attempts to make methamphetamine with it; however, the desire of
NDMA is that those types products be exempted from record-keeping
and registration.
Number 2035
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the states that criminalized
knowingly selling chemicals for the purpose of manufacturing
methamphetamine, and asked if those states were successful in their
attempts to prosecute such individuals.
MR. MISTER directed attention to two states, Iowa and Missouri,
that have prosecuted store owners that have sold with absolute
knowledge of intent to manufacture, and it is his belief that those
prosecutions have held up.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for clarification that, in fact, these
individuals were actually convicted.
MR. MISTER said yes, and explained that these were situations where
undercover agents attempted to purchase thousands of pills and
told the distributor what they were going to use them for. This
type of a law, he added, allows law enforcement to operate "sting
operations."
Number 2093
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT directed attention to the model legislation.
He questioned whether accepting the NDMA's amendment, or otherwise
removing the reporting requirement, would then make Alaskan
legislation substantially similar to their model.
MR. MISTER stated that was correct.
Number 2116
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE emphasized that he wanted the reporting
requirement placed in the bill initially in an effort to discuss
communication between local, state and federal law enforcement
agencies on the issue. It was never intended, he explained, for
that clause to remain in the bill, and he submitted to the
committee that Section 5 could probably be done away with. He
expressed willingness to work with the committee in establishing
retail "sting" provisions, if they so desired.
Number 2185
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if there had been a free exchange of
the federal government's information to the state regulatory
agencies or law enforcement.
MS. BUKAR admitted that certain regional DEA offices are generally
more cooperative than others, and stated that NDMA was very
distressed to learn that Alaska's Department of Public Safety has
been having problems getting this information. In certain states,
however, there is a definite free exchange of information between
local and federal DEA personnel.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired, "Because of the onerous fiscal
possibilities, would we be at our peril then relying on the
graciousness of the particular federal agency that might be dealing
with Alaska?"
MS. BUKAR assured the committee that the DEA takes the
methamphetamine problem very seriously and is striving for the best
method to combat this problem. It is her hope that things will
improve once the federal DEA is made aware of the communications
problem in certain states.
Number 2317
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Officer of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, State of Alaska, testified in support
of legislation regarding methamphetamine laboratories, and stressed
the department's past and future willingness to work with the bill
sponsor. He summarized the two most recent situations that
occurred in Fairbanks last year. He reported that DEA agents
responded to both of those incidents, and they are prosecuting one
of the cases federally due to the sophistication of the operation
and individuals involved. The other case, he noted, is being
treated as an attempted manufacture and is being prosecuted by the
state.
MR. SMITH addressed previous concerns that the reporting section
needs to remain in the bill due to lack of cooperation on the part
of the federal government; however, he emphasized that the process
of reporting would be onerous to Department of Public Safety and
the public sector. He was surprised to hear of a problem with
access to these reports because he thought communication would be
duplicated, to some degree, by the federal government's
involvement. Lieutenant William Gause, Statewide Drug Enforcement;
Lieutenant Dennis Casanovas, Criminal Investigations Unit; and
First Sargeant David Hudson, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
have all absolutely assured Mr. Smith that there has not been a
communication problem.
MR. SMITH contacted the DEA office in the state of Alaska, and they
also confirmed that they have been forthcoming in providing
requested information. Nationally, he reported, the DEA is very
concerned about the methamphetamine problem. He proudly declared
that the level of cooperation between the local, state and federal
agencies is unique to the state of Alaska.
MR. SMITH cited the discovery of recent mobile methamphetamine labs
in Seattle, and stressed the risks of mixing such volatile
chemicals in populated areas. Not knowing the locations of mobile
labs places entire neighborhoods in grave danger, he added. He
described the extreme safety precautions that firefighters and
hazardous materials specialists have to undergo. He readdressed
one of the incidents in Fairbanks, and reported that the attempted
manufacture charge reduced it to a C felony. The Department of
Public Safety would have liked that to be higher, because of all
the lives placed in peril by these labs.
Number 2470
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the collection of these chemicals
carried the same danger as manufacturing the methamphetamine.
MR. SMITH indicated that would depend upon what form it was being
collected in. Individual pills, for example, would probably not be
as dangerous as a mixture sitting in a 55-gallon drum.
TAPE 99-6, SIDE B
Number 0004
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired if criminalizing possession itself
would improve chances of catching manufacturers of methamphetamine,
She added, "Otherwise, you would have to wait until they went to
the next step, and by that that time they may have blown up
everybody."
MR. SMITH pointed out that an individual having, for example, "six
pallets of some kind of drugs" in the back of their house should,
at least, be required to explain their intent.
Number 0027
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI acknowledged that possession of such large
amounts of a chemical carries with it a fairly clear intent;
however, she wondered about the smaller quantities and/or
combinations. She asked, "How bad does it have to get before we
are concerned about it, in terms of the amount that you actually
have in your possession? At what point do you go from just having
it in your possession to actually being able to do something with
it so that you do have that intent to manufacture?"
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed with Mr. Smith to defer that question to an
upcoming witness, Sargeant Hudson, and announced that the question
would be held until the time of his testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned that he had various questions about
the amounts, the merger issue, and about intent. He wondered if
these questions, too, should be deferred to Sargeant Hudson.
MR. SMITH indicated he would prefer that they would be.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA emphasized that by making it a violation
just to possess and not changing section 11.71.195, possession of
Sudafed for a common cold would become a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed, and added that quantity alone would
not necessarily indicate intent, otherwise large stores would be
prosecuted.
Number 0117
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recognized, however, that more than one person
could be involved in this enterprise, and those individuals could
distribute the various chemicals amongst themselves. She cited the
example of a residential trailer in a rural area containing large
amounts of a certain drug, and observed that the intent in this
instance was probably not merely curing the occupants' colds.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Section 5 of HB 3 dealing with reporting
of distribution of listed chemicals, and commented that he felt it
was a little onerous. He asked Mr. Smith how the Commissioner of
the Department of Public Safety would go about determining an
amount or a quantity requiring reporting.
MR. SMITH acknowledged that this has been a problem for him in the
past couple of weeks. He indicated that a fiscal note might be
needed for a clerk, computerization, notices and monitoring of
businesses that report these chemicals. In view of the current
financial situation in the state of Alaska, and the fact that the
federal government is already doing this, it is his belief that
this should not be the direction this legislation should go.
Number 0221
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wondered how the state has currently been
handling methamphetamine possession prosecutions.
MR. SMITH referred back to the two cases in Fairbanks, and
explained how they are being prosecuted. He stated that
methamphetamine laboratories have been prosecuted since he arrived
in Alaska in the 1970s. The strong odor used to make it very easy
to identify these labs, and in those days the rumor was that many
of them were located on islands in the Prince of William Sound.
However, through the use of filters and other devices,
methamphetamine can now even be manufactured in a trailer on a busy
street in Seattle.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "So, one thing you like about this
bill is that it raises the threshold or the amount of penalty?"
MR. SMITH again referred to one of the cases in Fairbanks as an
example. He explained that the difficulty in prosecuting that
particular case was that law enforcement had to charge attempted
manufacturing instead of manufacturing, despite the fact that the
lab was clearly manufacturing methamphetamine.
Number 0298
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if the penalty would represent a
graduating scale based on determining the amount the lab intended
to produce.
MR. SMITH indicated that issue was something he had thought about,
and expressed his opinion that a large operation on one side of
town and a small operation on the other ought to represent varied
levels of severity. He said he suspected this was already the
case, but did not have a direct answer as to "what level that would
kick in." He felt that Sargeant Hudson, an upcoming witness, would
be better qualified to answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that individuals would
simply possess smaller quantities of these chemicals and
manufacture methamphetamine more often in an attempt to lessen the
degree of their penalty.
MR. SMITH commented, "If you had possession of all these items that
you could do something with, but you had not reduced them to the
common denominator and you didn't have any equipment to do that, it
is slightly, or substantially, different, in my view, than having
all of this sitting outside the building and you've got the
necessary equipment inside to make methamphetamine." He felt that
all of these factors should be considered when determining at what
level an individual is charged. He stressed that he and his staff
have been on a "steep learning curve" in trying to figure out the
best way to address this problem without impacting the vendors or
agencies inadvertently, but he had no recommendations at this
point.
Number 0449
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that there was a long list of
chemicals in the sponsor's bill; however, only three chemicals are
listed in the model legislation. He sought clarification as to
whether the model legislation would be adequate or if the "laundry
list" of drugs needed to be incorporated in the bill. He reminded
the committee that previous testimony has indicated that these
chemicals can change on a daily basis.
MR. SMITH advised that he was concerned about a detailed list, and
specified that the broadest possible indicator would be his choice,
as opposed to specifics. He agreed with previous testimony that
someone could come up with a chemical that did the same thing, but
was not on the detailed list, at any given time.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA wondered if the state would run into proof
problems if the legislation was written this broadly.
MR. SMITH agreed, and added that it would be very fine balance.
Number 0536
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he was uncertain what some of the
chemicals were, specifically, ephedrine.
MR. SMITH defined ephedrine as "a stimulant used as an ingredient
in diet pills, illegal recreational drugs, and legitimate
over-the-counter medications to treat congestion and asthma."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that pseudoephedrine, ephedrine
and phenylpropanolamine (PPA) were listed in both HB 3 and the
model legislation. If the concern was that HB 3 would not have as
broad of a coverage as the model legislation, he stressed, it
should be noted that it does.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG called attention to the fact that
inadvertently leaving something out of a specific, detailed list
would give grounds for defense; whereas, if there is a more generic
definition, it may be all-encompassing. On the other hand, certain
language may be too vague and could fail under "constitutionality
grounds." He felt that the Department of Law could help clarify
this matter.
CHAIRMAN KOTT expressed his belief that the model legislation was
a little more narrow than HB 3.
Number 0661
FIRST SARGEANT DAVID HUDSON, Central Office, Division of Alaska
State Troopers, answered questions via teleconference from
Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT acknowledged that he had concerns about the
merger aspects of this violation. He said it was his understanding
that the completed manufacture of methamphetamine is a B felony,
but it would be an A felony under HB 3 to possess the precursors
with intent to manufacture, and attempt to manufacture would either
be an A or B. He wondered how the court would handle possession of
a precursor as a higher penalty than successful manufacture.
FIRST SARGEANT HUDSON responded that he was not sure how the
Department of Law makes their determination of A, B or C felonies.
He agreed that, under current law, manufacture is a B felony, and
attempt is reduced by one count to a C felony. He was unsure why
it was proposed that possession with intent be an A felony when, in
fact, manufacture indicates a B felony under current statute.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he had heard it was really
difficult to quantify amounts of methamphetamine. He sought
clarification as to what would be a standard usage of
methamphetamine.
FIRST SARGEANT HUDSON testified that the actual usage on the street
is very, very minimal, and that is why it is such a lucrative
business to take a small amount of chemicals and turn them into an
even smaller amount of chemicals. Under the Chemical Diversion of
Trafficking Act of 1996, ephedrine can be tracked at the sales
level at + kilogram. For pseudoephedrine, he explained, the
federal government recommends that stores not sell more than 48
grams of pseudoephedrine at a time, approximately two packages.
This legislation does not mean an individual is required to give
their name and identification when purchasing two packages of cold
medication, but it is suggested that customers purchasing more than
two packages of pseudoephedrine in one transaction would be
unusual. What is being done around the nation to circumvent this
rule, he reported, is that individuals will buy two packages of
pseudoephedrine, walk out the door, walk back in the door and buy
two more packs, and literally do this all day. He stressed that it
takes a small amount of these analogues to be put together to make
a final processed chemical which can be sold on the street for a
large amount of money, and that is why it is so difficult to
quantify specific minimum amounts that law enforcement would want
to track. It would so burden the average consumer and vendor to
completely track these chemicals, he pointed out, that getting
individuals to comply would be extremely difficult.
Number 0908
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT called attention to the model legislation
referring to ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and PPA. He asked Sargeant
Hudson if he had a copy of HB 3 bill, and, if so, if he was
familiar with any of the other chemicals listed on that bill.
Specifically, he wondered if the chemicals listed were sometimes
used for the same or similar illegal purposes.
FIRST SARGEANT HUDSON reported that he gave the legislation to a
laboratory specialist. He asked the lab if these chemicals were
also used in the process, how they were used, and if others were
used. He was told that there are other substances that are not on
this list that are being found adequate as substitutes for
chemicals on the list. He mentioned "red phosphorous" which is a
chemical used to separate pseudoephedrine from its binders, and
stated that it is not on this list. In the 1997 Federal Diversion
and Trafficking Act, there were 34 substances on their list I and
II; however, literally on a monthly basis, other substances are
being found and used to circumvent the current registration law.
It is important to remember, he added, that many of the chemicals
on these lists have legitimate commercial purposes daily.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked the witness if he had been involved in any of
the methamphetamine laboratory "busts."
FIRST SARGEANT HUDSON stated that he worked in narcotics from 1993
to 1995. Although he went to numerous training sessions on drug
labs, at that time they were really uncommon in this state;
therefore, he has never been to a methamphetamine laboratory when
it was being raided.
CHAIRMAN KOTT wondered how often pseudoephedrine is discovered in
any drug lab busts in this state. It was his understanding that it
was only found in about 38% of the cases in the lower 48.
FIRST SARGEANT HUDSON indicated that was his understanding as well.
He testified that the chemical was usable, but by no means was it
always present in these labs.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if, statistically, Alaska was still about three
years behind the lower 48 in usage.
FIRST SARGEANT HUDSON stated that DEA representatives have
indicated to him that Alaska is "behind the curve" according to
national standards, but did not specify how many years; however, he
reported that he has heard the three-year figure in the past.
Number 1150
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN cited personal experience from laboratory
classes in college, and said that he felt he used chemicals from
this list, in one form or another, to do experiments in class. He
wondered if a school lab could be charged if an individual
expropriated chemicals from it or if the individual would be
charged. His concern was that by using a detailed list, however,
the state could "get ourselves in a box" with regard to the rapid
change in usable chemicals, but questioned whether or not something
else had to be added to the list in the model legislation. He
asked, "Are we making this much more difficult than necessary?"
FIRST SARGEANT HUDSON stressed that this is a dynamic and changing
business of manufacturing drugs, and the state would probably not
want to tie their hands by making an exhaustive list of chemicals.
He referred to a California statute that states an individual
possessing two, specifically named, chemicals at the same time
would be guilty of a felony crime. The state of Alaska would
probably benefit from looking at what our definition of manufacture
is in this state under title 11.71, or possibly look at making the
attempted manufacture of these methamphetamine-type drugs the same
level of crime as the actual manufacture, he added. By doing so,
he explained, the state could utilize the laws that are already in
place. He explored another option, which would be to look at a
statute of possession of chemicals in a grouping, as these
chemicals used in various ways by themselves are not illicit.
Combination of these chemicals to certain analogues, however, could
only be construed to be an attempt to construct these illicit
substances.
Number 1407
ANNIE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Juneau Legal
Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law, provided
testimony in support of the efforts of HB 3 in trying to prevent
the development of large-scale methamphetamine laboratories in our
state. She reiterated that they are very dangerous, not just to
the people that work in them, but to the innocent victims who
happen to live around them, and also to the environment. The
department is unsure at this time, however, as to the correct
approach to this problem. One of the problems with the HB 3, she
explained, is that it makes it a class A felony to possess legal
substances with intent to manufacture an illegal chemical, but the
current law makes it a class B felony to manufacture and to possess
the immediate precursors with the intent to manufacture.
MS. CARPENETI testified that the second problem is making an
inclusive list that will not change. The individuals who
manufacture methamphetamine, she reported, know a lot more about
the usable ingredients and are very clever about making
substitutes. If you make the offense possession of a listed
chemical with the intent to manufacture an illegal drug, people
will figure out other chemicals to use for manufacturing
methamphetamine. Under the federal law, she added, drug schedules
can be changed by regulation, and this is done on a monthly basis
by adding and taking away substances from their schedules. In
Alaska, this can only be done by legislation, so it is a much
tougher process to add and delete substances.
Number 1566
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the federal DEA type of list could
be adopted by reference.
MS. CARPENETI stated that she believed our statutes required the
state to make changes by legislation. The suggestion of the
Department of Law, she reported, is that the legislation consider
raising the manufacture of methamphetamine to either a first or
second-degree misconduct involving controlled substances. This
would involve removing the offense from its current B-felony
status, which is third degree, and move it up to first or
second-degree. They recommend not having a list, per se, of
particular chemicals, but provide that it is a more serious crime
to manufacture or to attempt to manufacture methamphetamine. After
placing both attempt and manufacture on the same level, she added,
you could then make some statutory provisions to guide the court in
its evidentiary decisions and provide that possession of particular
chemicals, in whatever combination, may be evidence of intent to
manufacture.
Number 1690
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT sought clarification as to whether this would
still consider possession of any of these items a substantial step
towards qualifying for the attempt to manufacture.
MS. CARPENETI said that was correct. She added that this would not
make it a conclusive presumption, but that if somebody had a pallet
of chemicals they would have no other use for, the court could
instruct the fact finder that it would up to them to conclude
whether or not they should indulge that presumption or not.
MS. CARPENETI provided the committee with an update on the
newspaper article about one of the cases in Fairbanks. She agreed
that the article was probably correct when it was published, but
since that time, the individual in question was indicted for
attempted manufacture of a controlled substance. He was extradited
to Oklahoma, and faces sentences of 20 years to life in two
different counties.
Number 1786
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the suggestion in the model
language, section 2, for punishing sales when the person knows the
purchaser is going to use the chemicals for manufacture of a
controlled substance. This section was created to assist in "sting
operations," and he asked Ms. Carpeneti if there were any legal
problems with such legislation.
MS. CARPENETI responded that it would be very hard to prove, and it
would be highly unlikely that the purchaser would state they were
buying those chemicals to make methamphetamine. She indicated her
willingness to work with the sponsor in drafting the suggestions of
the Department of Law .
Number 1889
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if circumstantial evidence was
grounds for prosecution of a felony.
MS. CARPENETI specified that there was great circumstantial
evidence and bad circumstantial evidence. Some circumstantial
evidence can be as good as direct evidence, but it depends upon the
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred back to the quantity issue, and
wondered if that could be used to prove intent.
MS. CARPENETI believed it could definitely be argued that
possession of large amounts of chemicals that have no other purpose
than use in these labs could go to intent, and that this would be
persuasive evidence that the person intended to use them for this
purpose.
Number 1994
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, came
forward to testify on HB 3. He cited personal experience of having
been at a methamphetamine laboratory in the 1980s when he was a
prosecutor. He referred to Representative Rokeberg's question
about the possibility of adopting the federal schedules by
reference and not having a specific list of chemicals. He stated
that the drafting manual from the Attorney General's office says
that this should never be done, and he gave the example of the
Northern Lights Motel in Anchorage. This case had to do with do
with adoption of a plumbing code by reference, and the issue was if
this code could be adopted by some non-governmental group and then
applied as a penalty to Alaska citizens. The Supreme Court
basically said that the legislature could not do this, and that
they would have to adopt it themselves or identify a specific list.
He observed that dealing with felony offenses makes this even
harder to justify.
MR. LUCKHAUPT added, "When I worked for the Attorney General down
in Wyoming, I was the attorney that added drugs to our schedule.
Whenever the feds changed their list and I signed it on behalf of
the attorney general as the commissioner of drugs of Wyoming, and
I would just sign this and adopt it, it became part of the law and
went into the statute books the next year by regulation. That was
a regulatory context in which I was doing that. We had decisions,
though, in Wyoming that were different based upon the Wyoming
constitution that allowed us to adopt these schedules from other
states or other regulatory bodies." He reported having had to
research this issue two to three years ago with regard to the
federal drug schedules when dealing with adding the "date rape
drug." If there is any discrepancy when dealing with controlled
substances, he stressed, state prosecutions will be affected for
quite some time and will have to wait until the legislature meets
again. Because of that, he explained, the committee at that time
decided not to "go down that road." State constitution is the
determining factor as to whether new controlled substances can be
added by legislation or regulation.
MR. LUCKHAUPT reiterated that the federal government decided to use
the list of chemicals; however, the only time there is a problem
with possession is if there is intent to manufacture an illegal
controlled substance. Disregarding the reporting requirement
issue, if intent to manufacture is not proven, possession of such
chemicals is not a problem. Many times, manufacturers simply
substitute what they are able to find on that particular day, and
they also spend time trying to find additional chemicals that will
work.
TAPE 99-7, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. LUCKHAUPT specified that all chemicals do not have to be on a
list in order to convict someone of attempt to manufacture. The
state could always set a level of evidence by statute to meet the
state's burden for conviction, he explained, and once those two or
three things are established, the burden is then shifted to the
defendant to refute intention to manufacture. An example of this
would be combining the possession of a listed chemical along with
glassware in a particular structure, and that could meet the
requirements for having an illicit laboratory. He did not endorse
the NDMA model legislation. He indicated that ephedrine cannot be
sold freely over-the-counter in the United States any more, unless
it is combined with significant amounts of other medicinal
substances for a specific purpose. Pseudoephedrine and PPA can
still be purchased over-the-counter, however, and are found in
various cold medications. It is these three ingredients that
methamphetamine producers usually use as the base material of their
product.
MR. LUCKHAUPT advised that, since reporting has been required, it
has become popular to use the plant ephedra as it grows naturally
throughout the world. Since the United States ephedra plants do
not usually contain as much ephedrine, it is often imported from
China. One of the varieties of this plant is Ma Huang, which has
been popular in health food stores and gyms, and this is used to
give people energy. He added, "If we just identify those three
things here in the statute, what about a person that is going out
to buy one of those three things, but they have already located the
material they need to separate out the methamphetamine itself from
the other base materials?" Sometimes, he explained, those types of
chemicals are more difficult to get than the ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine or PPA, which can often be simply purchased at the
grocery store.
Number 0438
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recognized that the chemical list could be so
long that an omission would allow someone to escape punishment.
With that in mind, he asked if it would be better to just penalize
the end result, and if the word "methamphetamine" would simply be
enough to prosecute. In other words, could the legislation simply
say that it is illegal to have the materials with the intent to
make methamphetamine, and not get so embroiled in all the various
definitions?
MR. LUCKHAUPT agreed that doing that would definitely have its
benefits. He stated that he drafted both HB 3 and HB 11 over a
period of time, depending upon the particular direction people were
going at the time. He mentioned that the state can already
prosecute these offenses as an attempt to manufacture now; however,
it moves one step down to a class C felony. The legislation has
been drafted to equalize the penalty, because the attempt is just
as dangerous as the manufacture. He reiterated that the fact that
a particular drug not being on the list would not necessarily stop
the state from prosecuting as an attempt to manufacture. He
referred to federally scheduled drugs, and pointed out that there
are over 100 different drugs listed as Schedule I. Schedule II
drugs include methamphetamine, immediate precursors to
methamphetamine, and various chemical forms of methamphetamine.
These drugs are specifically listed in statute, he stressed,
because of the length of potential incarceration. In Alaska, he
reported, the drug schedules have not really been kept up to
federal schedules. They matched the federal schedules in 1982 when
they were adopted; however, the Alaska legislature has chosen over
the years to classify some drugs differently than the federal
schedules. Mr. Luckhaupt stressed that any attempts to adopt the
federal schedules by reference would affect the other
classifications as well. The legislature has also chosen not to
add drugs to the schedules in the past, he added, and gave anabolic
steroids as an example. Marijuana is another example of a drug
that was, at one point, legal to possess under state law but
illegal under federal law. He agreed that drug manufacturers
usually do stay one step ahead of the lists to a certain extent;
however, schedules can be amended when they need to be.
MR. LUCKHAUPT urged the committee to consider if the creation of a
drug lab in an apartment building was as dangerous as selling drugs
to children. If it is decided to be, he stressed, then the penalty
should be the same, and an increase in the penalty for
manufacturing methamphetamine may be warranted. He cited his
personal experience in law enforcement, and stated that he
personally never came across another type of drug lab, only
marijuana grow operations and methamphetamine labs. It was his
opinion that LSD laboratories were not as common; however, if there
are other drug laboratories that are a problem, the legislation
should not be limited to methamphetamine. He stated, "If it is a
problem that seems to exclusively apply to methamphetamine, then
maybe we need to pick out methamphetamine, its analogues, its
immediate precursors, the salts, the optical isotopes, the salts of
the optical isotopes, and create a section that just deals
specifically with them, and make that part of misconduct involving
controlled substances in the first or second degree. If you
manufacture, attempt to manufacture, conspire to manufacture,
solicit the manufacture of any of these drugs, the penalty will be
the same, because the danger is all the same."
Number 1010
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the manufacture of methamphetamine
could be increased to an A felony, which would increase the attempt
to a B, and clarify somewhere that possession of any of these
precursors, and maybe fold the list into that, may be considered a
substantial step to qualify under the attempts statutes.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said that would be possible. By setting up a
presumptive offense, he clarified, the state would not necessarily
exclude any other attempted prosecution using different factual
circumstances or different chemicals to the extent somebody uses
one that is not on the list.
Number 1079
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wondered if there was a particular reason
red phosphorous was omitted from the list in HB 3.
MR. LUCKHAUPT stated that if it was not on the federal list, he did
not draft it on the HB 3 list. He agreed that he had heard red
phosphorous was one of the chemicals used, but he has not confirmed
it was not already listed there under a different chemical name.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the previously mentioned
Northern Lights Motel case. He questioned whether or not the
legislature could turn over a Supreme Court decision that is not
based on constitutional dimension by enacting a law to change "that
which seems absolutely ludicrous." He stressed that the
legislature had to change the way they were doing business, which
would involve drafting statutes that are not always so complex.
MR. LUCKHAUPT agreed, but not if the Supreme Court states it is of
constitutional dimension. He added, "The point the Court was
trying to make in that case was the legislature is elected by the
people. If other group changes this group of regulations that does
not exist in Alaska, maybe some trade group, those people in Alaska
do not have a right to turn to their legislator and influence that
decision. It just automatically changes when this other group
makes the change. The Supreme Court said that was the legislature
delegating its law-making powers to some other group, and that is
where the problem comes in, and that is of constitutional
dimension." If you identify a date and time certain, he continued,
the public would then have notice and it would not automatically
change in the future.
Number 1272
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked for specific examples of other crimes
where the attempt is actually at the same level as the underlying
crime. Normally, she pointed out, the attempt is actually the next
step down.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said that attempted first degree murder was the only
example of that. There were one or two other situations, he
reported, where the word "attempt" is actually mentioned in Title
11, outside of AS 11.31.100 which is the "attempt statute." Other
than first degree murder, however, attempt is always punished one
step down.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that this legislation would
create an anomaly by stating the attempt was in the same class as
the crime.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that it is generally recognized that the
attempt to commit a crime is less serious than the actual
commission of the crime; therefore, this would encourage people to
abandon their attempt to commit a crime in an effort to benefit
from some lenience. However, the argument with drug labs is that
you do not actually have to complete the commission of the crime in
order to provide the main hazards: the volatility of the
chemicals, the hazardous materials, and the danger it presents to
other people. Consequently, the argument for a step-down penalty
is not there, he noted.
Number 1367
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI requested a brief summary on the
differences between HB 3 and HB 11.
MR. LUCKHAUPT outlined that HB 11 also requires the person
possessing chemicals to file a statement with the Commissioner of
the Department of Public Safety when they cross a threshold amount
of chemicals. He assumed that either one of these bills would
necessitate adoption of federal limits, and these limits were set
by the Attorney General of the United States. The federal statutes
provide an exemption for over-the-counter drugs, takes away the
exemption for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine or PPA, and then gives the
exemption back for less than 24 grams of pseudoephedrine or PPA, as
well as retail sales for ephedrine.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if it was "suspicious activity" that
is to be reported.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that an individual buying two packages of
cold tablets should not be reported. He indicated that a
medium-sized methamphetamine lab would require at least 80 packages
of 12 tablets of pseudoephedrine or PPA to cook a small batch. The
federal regulations state that DEA will contact retail
manufacturers and will inform them to look out for certain
individuals, and will actually give them names, that they are
suspicious of, and educate retail manufacturers on how to identify
suspicious sales.
Number 1536
WILDA RODMAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Gene
Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, presented a statement for the
record from Representative Therriault regarding HB 3. He wanted to
state his concerns with some of the cost-effectiveness of the
recording requirements. She stated, "Representative Brice has the
lower numbers, so we are willing to go with the consensus of the
committee on HB 3."
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Brice if he had anything to add,
and indicated his intention to hold HB 3 in committee to allow
staff to work with the Department of Law, the bill drafter, and
Representative Brice's office.
Number 1592
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wondered if the bill should take the direction
of having the evidence establish prima facie, rather than the
specific lists of chemicals. He stated that either way was
amenable to him, and expressed his willingness to draft a couple of
different proposals to present back to the committee.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that House Bill 3 would be held in
committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1687
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee at
3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|