Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/22/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB48 | |
| HB24 | |
| HB57 || HB59 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 22, 2017
1:34 p.m.
1:34:02 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Sam Kito III, Sponsor; Kris Curtis,
Legislative Auditor, Alaska Division of Legislative Audit;
Janey Hovenden, Director, Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Representative Charisse Millett, Sponsor; Grace Abbott,
Staff, Representative Charisse Millett; David Teal,
Director, Legislative Finance Division. Michele Elfers,
Landscape Architect, Engineering and Public Works
Department, City of Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Colin Maynard, Board of Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors, Anchorage; Rob Henderson, Controlled Substances
Advisory Committee, Department of Law; Captain Michael
Duxbury, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public
Safety.
SUMMARY
HB 24 LIST U-47700 AS A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
CSHB 24(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee as
amended with a "do pass" recommendation and with
five previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1
(COR), FN2 (DHS), FN3 (LAW), FN4 (DPS), FN5
(DPS).
HB 48 ARCHITECTS,ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS: EXTEND BD
HB 48 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal note: FN1 (CED).
HB 57 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 57 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 59 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 59 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Seaton discussed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 48
"An Act relating to the composition of the State Board
of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors; extending the termination date of the State
Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and
Land Surveyors; and providing for an effective date."
1:35:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO III, SPONSOR, introduced himself
and offered a potential conflict of interest. He noted that
he was currently a licensed civil engineer and his practice
of engineering was governed by the board HB 48 would
extend. The bill would extend the sunset on the Architects,
Engineers and Land Surveyors (AELS) Board. He detailed that
since 1998 there had been a landscape architect position on
the board as a non-voting member. The bill recommended
extending the board in accordance with the recommendations
by the Division of Legislative Audit and to make the
temporary non-voting position a permanent voting position.
The change would mean the number of board members would
increase from 10 to 11, but it merely recognized that the
temporary non-voting member would become a permanent board
member. The bill did not remove any other representation
from the board and it added a landscape architect as a full
voting member. The bill would enable the individual
representing landscape architects to fully engage in their
position and participate as a voting member on the board.
Currently the individual reviewed applications for
landscape architecture in the state and was performing
duties as a full board member with the exception of being
able to vote. He relayed that the Division of Legislative
Audit and individuals from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) were available
to address the committee.
1:38:30 PM
Representative Thompson asked if there was a statutory
requirement for the board to meet in person.
Representative Kito replied as far as he knew there was no
statutory requirement, but he deferred to the department
for verification. There were opportunities for telephonic
meetings; however, applications were typically presented in
paper form and reviewed in person. He detailed that board
members broke up by licensing division and reviewed the
applications for the director. He concluded there were
reasons for having the meetings in person.
Representative Kawasaki looked at the fiscal note and
remarked that adding the 11th member did not change any
travel and per diem. He asked for verification that the
individual had already been allowed to claim travel and per
diem as a non-voting member.
Representative Kito answered there would be no additional
costs related to the 11th member who was already receiving
financial support for travel and per diem. There was a
recognition as a sunset that there would be costs to the
board, but they were existing costs.
Representative Kawasaki looked at the information in the
fiscal note from Legislative Audit that mentioned the
number of new registrations of landscape architects existed
over FY 13 to FY 15 - he observed it looked like only two
or three. He asked how many licensed landscape architects
there were in Alaska.
Representative Kito replied there were about 50.
1:40:50 PM
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, relayed the division had conducted a
sunset audit with the purpose of determining whether the
board was serving the public's interest and whether it
should be extended. Overall, the division had determined
that the board was serving the public's interest by
effectively registering and regulating architects,
engineers, land surveyors, and landscape architects. The
division recommended the maximum eight-year board extension
allowable in statute. The division did not have an
additional recommendation. She noted that the audit
included some information that may be helpful as the
committee considered the bill. She referred to page 7 of
the audit and pointed out that the board had a deficit in
the end of FY 13 of approximately $260,000 and fees had
been increased. At the end of FY 15 the board had a surplus
of over $740,000 at which point the fees had been
decreased. A schedule of the fees was on page 8 of the
audit.
Ms. Curtis continued that the audit also addressed board
composition. A temporary, non-voting member position had
been created in 1998 and authorized in uncodified law as
temporary. The position did act like a voting member in all
regards except it did not vote. The original intent of the
position was to assist the board in drafting regulations in
representing the landscape architect profession. The
division had interviewed seven board members as part of the
audit and all had been in support of making the position
permanent.
Co-Chair Seaton asked DCCED to address its fiscal note.
1:43:17 PM
JANEY HOVENDEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, she explained
the bill did not ask for any additional funding for the
board. The note included funding to allow the board to
continue functioning. There was $27,800 for one staff and
eleven members to travel to four board meetings per year,
$200 for advertising and public notice, $1,000 for board
member training and conference fees, $500 for honorariums
and stipends for board meetings, and $100 for commission
sales for the booking of board meetings. The items were
paid for with receipt supported services provided by
licensees.
Co-Chair Seaton OPENED public testimony.
MICHELE ELFERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY OF JUNEAU, spoke in support of the
legislation. She shared that she was also a member of the
Alaska Professional Design Council - the group represented
architects, engineers, landscape surveyors, and landscape
architects through member organization throughout the
state. The board supported the bill including the extension
of the sunset and the creation of a permanent voting board
seat for landscape architects.
1:45:54 PM
COLIN MAYNARD, BOARD OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, AND LAND
SURVEYORS, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in
support of the bill. The board unanimously approved with
the bill in its entirety. He detailed that the landscape
architect board member represented the board at the
National Organization of Landscape Architect Registration
Boards and provided an essential part of the AELS's
mission. He did not believe the board was required to meet
face-to-face; however, in the past there had been efforts
to teleconference, but there had been situations when some
members could not hear very well. Additionally, it was very
hard to do an application review when two board members had
to review and discuss an application. The board had found
it was much easier to meet in person.
Co-Chair Seaton noted Vice-Chair Gara had joined the
meeting.
Co-Chair Seaton CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Gara addressed the fiscal note from DCCED. There
was a $29,600 cost in FY 18 extending through FY 23. The
costs would be paid with designated general funds.
1:49:05 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to REPORT HB 48 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 48 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
note: FN1 (CED).
1:49:44 PM
AT EASE
1:52:17 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 24
"An Act classifying U-47700 as a schedule IA
controlled substance; and providing for an effective
date."
1:52:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT, SPONSOR, explained the
bill that had come to her office via the governor's office
in the fall. One of the things identified in the ongoing
opioid crisis facing the state was that the combination of
opioids and synthetic additives were making the problem
even more deadly. She detailed that U47700, also called
Pink, was an additive being cut into heroin. She specified
the drug was incredibly potent and could be seven times the
potency of morphine. The synthetic drug was leading to a
new realm of danger in the ongoing drug problem facing
communities. There was no medical use for the drug - it had
no medical value. The drug was easily made and was easily
obtained on the internet. It was not illegal to order the
drug in Alaska. Law enforcement was seeing a rise in
overdoses with Pink added to the substance individuals were
overdosing on.
Representative Millett explained that the bill would
classify Pink as a IA drug; it was already there in the
federal registry. In the future there were numerous drugs
that were already being produced that would at some point
need to be put on the schedule. One of the ideas generated
from the bill was looking at what the federal government
did when it had drugs that had no medical reason or purpose
- the federal government had a regulatory authority to put
the drugs on the federal registry. She suggested it may be
something the Alaska Legislature should consider. Every
time she spoke to public safety [officials] she was amazed
at the ease and drug process of changing one ingredient in
a synthetic drug that made it legal. She believed the state
would be seeing much more to come. She noted it had been
witnessed during the Spice [synthetic drug] crisis. She
noted that the suggestion would be difficult to include in
the current bill. She believed Governor Walker was looking
for a way of including drugs on the schedule by way of a
regulatory process. She cited tramadol as another drug that
had been addressed by the Controlled Substance Advisory
Committee. She noted there were individuals available to
testify about the immediate danger of Pink and about how it
was impacting the state's communities and residents.
1:56:33 PM
Representative Guttenberg referred to Representative
Millett's statement about the ability to use the regulatory
process [to put synthetic drugs on a register]. He thought
the legislature had passed something similar several years
earlier. He asked if it had been a different schedule.
Representative Millett answered that the legislature had
passed legislation with a controlled substance advisory
committee that reviewed drugs that had no medical purpose
or were identified by public safety. The advisory committee
made recommendations about drugs to put on the schedule,
which was how Pink and tramadol had been brought to the
legislature. She did not know of any other current way of
putting a drug on the schedule than via legislation.
Representative Guttenberg remarked the drug was number 82
on the list and every time a molecule was manipulated in a
formula the legislature had to go through the legislative
process. He looked forward to a time when the process could
be done administratively.
Representative Millett agreed. She believed there would be
more drugs of the same nature - with no medical purpose -
introduced into the state's communities.
1:58:31 PM
Co-Chair Foster joined the meeting.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for the ramifications of making
something a schedule IA substance. He asked if it meant a
drug could be made legal if a doctor made it legal.
Alternatively, he wondered if the action simply put the
drug on the criminal drug list.
Representative Millett deferred to the Department of Law
(DOL).
Vice-Chair Gara reiterated his question.
Representative Millett answered that possession would be a
misdemeanor, distribution of less than one gram would be a
class C felony, and distribution exceeding one gram would
be a class B felony.
Co-Chair Seaton listed testifiers available online.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for ramifications of adding the
substance to the controlled substances list.
2:01:50 PM
ROB HENDERSON, CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), replied that a
schedule IA under Alaska law was different than a schedule
I on the federal schedule. In Alaska there were drugs on
the schedule IA with a medical purpose, but drugs included
in the schedule in Alaska were considered so dangerous or
susceptible to abuse that the committee ranked them as high
as possible on the schedule. Generally speaking they were
talking about the criminal schedule - in Title 11 under
possession and distribution and also in Title 28, which
included driving under the influence of a controlled
substance.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for verification Mr. Henderson's
response included all ramifications of putting a drug on
the [controlled substances] list. He surmised that it may
be possible with some of the other drugs on the list to
obtain a prescription if there was another use. He
understood no one would be receiving a prescription for
Pink.
Mr. Henderson answered there were some other controlled
substances classified as IA that could be prescribed. The
other implication would be things like the Prescription
Drug Monitoring Program and other regulatory aspects of
prescription drugs. However, the purpose of including Pink
on the schedule would be to attach criminal liability to
its possession or distribution.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that Pink was illegal under federal
law. He asked if local and state law enforcement was not
currently able to arrest a person for the substance and
hand them over to the federal authorities. He wondered what
was currently allowed for state law enforcement.
Mr. Henderson answered that local law enforcement would
have the ability to investigate and refer charges over to
the federal government, but local law enforcement was
really just charged with enforcing state law. The state law
enforcement did work collaboratively with federal partners,
but the primary charge was to enforce federal [state] law.
2:04:35 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if local law enforcement was
currently allowed to arrest someone for the substance and
to refer the individual over to federal authorities.
Mr. Henderson replied they legally could if they had
authorization from or permission from the U.S. Attorney's
Office.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the DOL attorney
general had sent a memorandum dated February 1 [2017]. He
was unclear about whether a state trooper could stop a
person who was distributing the drug. He stated that the
memo specified that if the legislature passed the
legislation and designated the substance as a schedule IA
in statute that Alaska would allow state law enforcement to
stop distributors. Without the passage of the bill, he
asked whether as state trooper could arrest a person for
distribution or possession.
Mr. Henderson responded there were state troopers working
collaboratively with federal law enforcement and were able
to make arrests for violation of federal drug laws.
However, the typical Alaska State Trooper was charged with
enforcing state law. Unless something represented a
violation of state law, the item would not be a priority in
an investigation.
Representative Kawasaki asked for verification that a
downtown patrol officer in the City of Juneau or a Village
Public Safety Officer (VPSO) in a rural area could take
action without the passage of HB 24.
Mr. Henderson answered that the officer would not have the
ability to take action without prior discussion with the
U.S. Attorney's Office. He explained that without the
discussion there would be no mechanism in which to enter
the arrest into the federal criminal justice system. He
detailed that if a local law enforcement officer came into
contact with U47700 during normal duties, an arrest would
not be made and it would most likely be referred to federal
law enforcement.
2:07:45 PM
Representative Kawasaki believed substances 72 through 81
had been passed since he had been in the legislature. He
remarked that statute had been passed for Spice and Bath
Salts [synthetic drugs]. He believed there had to be an
easier way to handle the situation than always adding a new
substance to a list. He supported a regulatory mechanism.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
2:09:27 PM
AT EASE
2:11:01 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS0260\A.1
(Martin, 2/10/17) (copy on file):
Page 4, lines 28 - 29:
Delete all material and insert:
"(82) 3,4-dichloro-N-[2-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]-N-
methylbenzamide, also known as U-47700.'
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster explained the amendment corrected a
spelling error to include a missing "z."
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
2:12:05 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-LS0260\A.2
(Martin, 2/17/17) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "substance;":
Insert "classifying tramadol and related substances as
schedule IVA controlled substances;"
Page 4, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
1* Sec. 2. AS 11.71.170 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(g) Schedule IVA includes, unless specifically
excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any
material, compound, mixture, or preparation which
contains any quantity of the following substance or
its salts calculated as the free anhydrous base or
alkaloid: 2-[(dimethylamino)methyl]- 1 -(3 -
methoxyphenyl)cyclohexanol, its salts, optical and
geometric isomers, and salts of these isomers,
including tramadol."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Foster explained that Amendment 2 would classify
tramadol and related substances as schedule IVA substances.
GRACE ABBOTT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT,
explained that the amendment followed along the same
recommendation from the Controlled Substances Advisory
Committee along with scheduling Pink as a schedule IA
controlled substance. The advisory committee had
recommended that tramadol be classified as a IVA controlled
substance. The amendment would follow the advisory
committee's recommendation. The amendment was also aligned
with the way the federal schedule had read since 2014. She
relayed that Mr. Henderson could elaborate on the advisory
committee's recommendation.
Representative Kawasaki asked whether tramadol had a
medical function. Additionally, he queried the difference
between the schedule IA and IVA.
Ms. Abbott answered that as the schedule went from VI to I
it became more severe. Tramadol had a medical purpose as a
pain killer; the specific drug could be used properly under
a doctor's prescription. Under the IVA schedule there would
be consequences for individuals selling the drug illicitly
or providing the drug to people under the age of 19.
Representative Wilson asked if the only way to get the drug
was through prescription. Ms. Abbott believed so.
Representative Wilson thought it was already illegal to
sell a prescribed medication.
Ms. Abbott answered that the question was beyond her scope
of understanding, but putting the drug on the schedule
allowed for certain consequences for criminal purposes as
well as providing it to people under the age of 19. She
deferred to Mr. Henderson for further explanation.
2:15:08 PM
Mr. Henderson explained that it was already against federal
law, but it was not a violation of Alaska law because
tramadol was not classified as a controlled substance by
the state. The amendment would align federal and state law.
Representative Wilson asked if she could sell any
prescriptions for profit as long as they were not
classified as schedule I to VI.
Mr. Henderson answered it depended on the prescription and
it depended on if it was a controlled substance under
federal or state law. There were some prescription drugs
that would not fall under Title 11. However, the department
tried to make federal and state law consistent.
Representative Wilson believed the amendment changed the
bill. She had always thought it was illegal to sell a
prescription. She asked for verification that currently if
she sold tramadol received in a prescription that the
Juneau Police could not arrest her.
Mr. Henderson replied that if Representative Wilson was
selling tramadol at present, it would not currently be a
violation of state law.
Representative Wilson wondered why all of a sudden tramadol
needed to be added to the schedule. She asked what it took
to get on the schedule. She asked what particular issues
had taken place that warranted putting tramadol on the
list.
Mr. Henderson answered that tramadol had been around for
some time and it had first come to the attention of the
advisory committee approximately 18 months earlier when a
representative from western Alaska had testified about
abuse occurring with tramadol. The advisory committee had
heard about it again the past fall when it had received a
letter from the Alaska Pharmacists Association requesting
the committee recommend the scheduling of tramadol. In part
the request was due to the inconsistency existing between
federal and state law. He elaborated that individuals were
able to obtain tramadol legally or illegally, but state law
enforcement was unable to address the issue.
Representative Wilson thought any drug manufactured would
automatically fall under schedule I through VI under the
philosophy that it could be misused or sold for other
purposes.
2:19:22 PM
Mr. Henderson answered it was a policy question for the
legislature. When the advisory committee had discussed the
issue it had recognized the current scheduling process was
not as nimble or flexible as in some other states or
federal government that could regulate drugs, which were
ratified or adopted by Congress.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the amendment would only classify
tramadol as a IVA drug. He asked for verification that it
was not currently classified as a IVA drug.
Mr. Henderson replied that he did not have a copy of the
amendment. The testimony and information received by the
advisory committee was tramadol. He noted it would make
sense to include other related substances.
Vice-Chair Gara shared that he had broken his ribs the past
year and had wanted the lowest level pain killer the doctor
could prescribe, but the doctor had prescribed tramadol. He
asked if he would have committed a crime if he gave a
person a tramadol.
Mr. Henderson replied it was a difficult question that
implicated several different criminal statutes. The
distribution of a controlled substance, depending on the
type, was a crime. There were various justification
defenses that would relieve the person of criminal
liability (e.g. for necessity).
2:22:01 PM
Representative Ortiz spoke to Representative Kawasaki's
earlier question related to the difference between schedule
I and IV drugs. He referred to Ms. Abbott's response that
there was more severity [increasing from schedule VI to I].
He asked if Ms. Abbott was speaking about severity of
complications with the drug itself causing more danger.
Ms. Abbott answered in the affirmative. The danger and the
severity of punishment increased along with the schedule of
the drug. She deferred to the department for more detail.
Representative Ortiz asked if in layman's terms the U47700
was less dangerous than tramadol. Ms. Abbott clarified that
U47700 was more dangerous. She explained that schedule I
was the most severe and schedule VI was the least severe.
Representative Kawasaki asked if adding a drug to the
schedule would change any prescription authority for
prescribers.
Mr. Henderson deferred the question. He did not believe it
changed the prescription authority.
Representative Kawasaki had some concern about the
amendment coming in so late. He knew tramadol was a useful
medication that he believed was often prescribed. He
recognized the substance was ripe for abuse, but he
believed adding it to the list of schedule IV drugs may
complicate things in the future. He requested an answer to
the question.
2:25:17 PM
Representative Guttenberg heard DOL say that at the federal
level some organization put a drug on its list and at some
point Congress approved or disapproved to make it official.
He asked if it was the process Mr. Henderson had been
referring to.
Mr. Henderson answered in the affirmative. Under federal
law the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) had regulatory
authority; it could pass emergency regulations and Congress
had to act within a specific amount of time - he believed
it was between 18 and 24 months. He thought that under
federal law the drug would fall off the controlled
substance schedule if Congress chose not to act.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether, during the period
where Congress had yet to take action one way or another,
there was any difference in the ability to enforce. He was
trying to come up with a way to mimic what the federal
government did to make the process faster.
Mr. Henderson answered that the advisory committee had
discussed the concept. He detailed that the discussion had
occurred during the same meeting the committee had
recommended the scheduling of U47700 and tramadol. The
advisory committee had also affirmatively adopted the
recommendation from the opioid taskforce, which was to
create a regulatory body to address the issue under
discussion. He believed that with a clear delegation of
authority from the legislature to a regulatory body would
be feasible. At that point the emergency regulation would
have the full effect of the statute.
2:27:46 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked if there had been an actual
recommendation or whether the dialogue had taken place
without any action. He asked if anything in writing had
been advanced [by the advisory committee] to help
facilitate the action.
Mr. Henderson answered it had only been a committee
dialogue; it had been the first opportunity for the
advisory committee to review the opioid taskforce
recommendation. The concept was being actively considered
by the committee and he anticipated the conversation to
continue during a meeting the following week.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW Amendment 2. He wanted the
original bill to move forward. He noted they could work on
the tramadol component at a separate time.
Representative Millett agreed that if the committee was
uncomfortable it was fine to take the amendment off the
table. She remarked there was a companion bill in the
Senate, which would have a bit longer to look at the
tramadol component. She believed U47700 needed immediate
action.
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the public danger of tramadol.
Representative Millett answered that the Controlled
Substance Abuse Advisory Committee was seeing a higher
propensity for individuals to abuse tramadol. She referred
to designer drugs that came about occasionally and abuse
that occurred with the quantity of tramadol. She noted it
was possible to overdose on tramadol. The advisory
committee had seen a higher usage in street terms rather
than as a prescription. When someone was buying 50 tramadol
and taking, smoking, or adding the drug to something else,
the substance became dangerous. There were substances
already on the schedule such as codeine and morphine that
they were trying to combat. Individuals were finding
ingenious ways to combine drugs and illicit a higher high.
She did not believe the advisory committee took putting a
drug on the schedule very lightly.
2:32:08 PM
Vice-Chair Gara stated the underlying bill made sense as it
addressed a drug with no beneficial use; however, the
doctor who had treated him when he had broken ribs had told
him tramadol was the least of the serious prescriptions he
could prescribe. He asked Representative Millett to keep
the committee apprised of the tramadol situation.
Representative Millett replied that she would provide all
of the information she received related to tramadol. She
believed it was important to look at the other drugs on the
schedule in order to see what had been included over the
years. She reiterated that people were creative in
concocting things for a high. She imagined they could be
discussing mouthwash in the future.
Vice-Chair Gara addressed the five fiscal previously
published zero fiscal notes from the Department of
Corrections; the Department of Health and Social Services;
the Department of Law; the Department of Public Safety,
Division of Alaska State Troopers; and the Department of
Public Safety, Division of Statewide Support.
Representative Kawasaki remarked on the zero fiscal notes.
He surmised that if a drug was added to the schedule and
the intent was to see prosecutions and arrests of people
distributing the drug, he did not believe it was possible
for the notes to have zero impact. He stated at best the
cost was indeterminate.
Representative Wilson concurred, especially pertaining to
fiscal note 1 from the Department of Corrections. She
stated her understanding that the bill would make the crime
a felony, which would mean someone would end up in prison.
She referenced the daily prison cost of $149.62. She asked
how many potential people had to be locked up to result in
a fiscal note. She asked how many potential arrests it
would take for the Department of Public Safety to submit a
fiscal impact note.
2:36:52 PM
CAPTAIN MICHAEL DUXBURY, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), answered that the
current issue termed by many as the opioid problem was
actually a multi-drug use problem. He explained that the
reason the department had asked for the drug to be
scheduled was it is very similar to other scheduled drugs
often prescribed including oxycontin and oxycodone. The
goal was to reduce the ability of people to abuse the drugs
or send them through the mail. Currently the drug could be
purchased online even though it was a prescription drug. He
explained that submitting the zero fiscal note was not with
an intention of deceiving anyone, it reflected that the
department saw the drug in conjunction with other drugs
being shipped throughout the state. The department was
looking for the scheduling to take place in order to have a
deterrence and to reduce the amount of bad choices.
2:39:05 PM
Representative Wilson thanked Mr. Duxbury for making her
point. She referred to one of two things taking place -
people were selling a variety of drugs, which meant adding
the drug would not change the number of arrests the
department was making; however, she had a hard time
believing the troopers would not be making more arrests -
she was not saying it was a bad thing. She spoke to the
prosecution work done by the Department of Law and the
Department of Corrections. She asked if the co-chair
reviewed the fiscal notes and could send them back to the
departments to say they did not make sense. She believe a
zero fiscal note sent the wrong message. She would prefer
to see an indeterminate note versus a zero note.
2:40:50 PM
AT EASE
2:43:13 PM
RECONVENED
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
addressed the confusion over the zero fiscal notes. He
believed members were looking at the fiscal notes as
information, which they were, but they were primarily a
request for funding. The department in its explanation was
saying there would be costs, but because it was a part of
the department's current duties it was not requesting
additional funds to enforce the particular drug. He
clarified it did not mean there was no cost, it meant the
department did not want money added to its budget to do
work it was already doing, which was enforcing drug abuse
in general.
Representative Wilson asked for verification the committee
could take the fiscal note to heart and that the following
year when the department came back needing more money
because they arrested people and put them in jail, the
committee could remind the department it had lost the
opportunity to put the money in the fiscal note.
Mr. Teal confirmed that the committee could remind the
department of that. He continued that the department would
have actually lost the opportunity to put the funding in a
fiscal note; however, that did not mean the department
could not submit an increment following year due to
unexpected additional costs. There may be increments for
the issue, but the department did not know that at present;
therefore, in the first year, it was not making a request
through the fiscal note process.
Representative Wilson asked how many arrests had been made
under the federal law for the specific drug. [Note: there
was no reply.]
2:46:17 PM
Vice-Chair Gara stated that he was done with receiving zero
fiscal notes when things cost money. He expounded that the
district attorney's office was declining more and more
prosecutions and letting more and more criminals go free
due to a lack of prosecutors. He remarked that for years
the public and others had stressed cutting the budget. He
reasoned that at some point it was not possible to pretend
it was prudent to continue cutting the public safety
budget. He stated that when the department came forward in
the future notifying the legislature it needed an extra
$200,000 for prosecutors, he would not be supportive of
continuing to cut the budget. He stated the ramification
would be a deficiency in the number of prosecutors. The
bill would improve the ability to arrest people for the
drug, but it would mean other prosecutions would not go
forward. He did not believe it was possible to cut
everything and make the problems disappear. He would be
receptive if the department asked for more prosecutors the
following year.
Representative Pruitt believed it was important to
recognize the bill did not create a whole new
classification of drugs. He surmised the state would
probably have dealt with individuals in some capacity for
possession of the drug under discussion or for a similar
drug. He did not want to say it would be a wash, but he
thought the issue under discussion was probably not really
a relevant point. He continued the person may end up
costing the state money in the first place in one way or
another. When a person had reached the point of doing the
drug under the bill they had done other drugs before. The
substance was nasty and the state would deal with them in
some capacity. He believed the committee just needed to
pass the bill out of committee.
2:49:47 PM
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that he had served as a member on
the statewide opioid taskforce over the past year. He
shared that the problem was significant. The question was
whether not putting a drug on the schedule meant the state
was allowing its distribution and increasing the number of
individuals who became addicted. He elaborated that the
number of individuals addicted to opioids would increase if
the state allowed addictive substances to carry no criminal
offense. He believed they should consider the bill may save
some addictions from taking place in the first place
because the drugs would not be legal. It was currently
legal to distribute the drug.
Representative Pruitt MOVED to REPORT CSHB 24(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She stated the drug
[U47700] was one of the few drugs that fell in its own
category. She agreed the drug was bad and should not exist.
However, she emphasized the importance of receiving
"honest" fiscal notes. She acknowledged that the drug under
consideration may not change costs, but she underscored
that the committee is the finance committee and it needed
to know whether a department would need to come back to
request funds in the future. She spoke to the committee
discussion about adding additional drugs to the schedule.
She explained that codeine had been readily available until
people started misusing it. She shared that in the past one
of her children had been afflicted with asthma and codeine
had been the only thing that worked. She explained that the
drug had eventually been unavailable because some people
were not using the product for its intended use. She
underscored that it was unrealistic to think putting drugs
on a list would prevent people from using drugs in a manner
they should not. There were certain drugs like U47700 that
were "no brainers," but she believed it was necessary to
recognize that it was not possible to stop people from
misusing every substance. She wanted to send the message
that in order to take a close look at the budget the
committee wanted to receive realistic fiscal notes. She
WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Seaton made a clarifying remark related to the
motion to move the bill.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 24(FIN) was REPORTED
out of committee as amended with a "do pass" recommendation
and with five previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1
(COR), FN2 (DHS), FN3 (LAW), FN4 (DPS), FN5 (DPS).
2:54:04 PM
AT EASE
2:56:37 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; repealing appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations and reappropriations, and
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 59
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
2:56:43 PM
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that it was an opportune time to
discuss the new amendment procedures.
2:57:20 PM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION (LFD),
expressed his intent to discuss the new budget amendment
system. He believed the process for legislators and staff
was very similar to the old system. He explained that the
old process had worked but it had been cumbersome, due to
technical or structural errors that occurred. For example,
errors included the misnaming of the agency, allocation, or
appropriation; removing money that did not exist; and a
lack in line item detail. He furthered that it forced LFD
to do a lot of guessing about what the amendment really
meant and what was supposed to be done with the money.
Additionally, under the old system the co-chair had to
track amendments in a spreadsheet because due to duplicates
and other. As amendments were passed LFD had to rekey the
amendments into the budget system. He explained that the
process had required entering the same data at three
different times. He added that often times proposed
language had not gone through Legislative Legal Services
and did not meet its standards. The division had decided in
the past there was something wrong with the inefficiencies
and had been beginning to prepare a new amendment system.
Mr. Teal addressed the new amendment system. He detailed
that the system offered drop down menus on the LFD website
to help avoid technical problems. A new amendment could be
easily added by finance committee members only.
3:01:09 PM
Mr. Teal walked the committee through an explanation and
used the Department of Revenue (DOR) as an example. The
system would help users avoid technical errors. He relayed
that once an amendment was entered correctly the author
could edit, delete, and attach any PDF backup including a
Legislative Legal Services language amendment. It was also
possible to share the material with others. He compared the
system to CAPSIS [Capital Project Submission and
Information System]. The amendment author could let
Legislative Finance Division view the material. The
division would help the author with transaction titles,
catch errors, edit the explanation if desired, and so
forth. Theoretically the process would result in better
amendments.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the amendment author would
continue to have access to edit the amendment once it was
submitted in the system to the finance committee.
Mr. Teal answered that LFD could view the amendment and
edit it if requested by a finance member's office. The goal
was to have errors fixed prior to sending the amendments to
the committee.
3:06:09 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked if an amendment could be changed once
it had been shared with other committee members.
Mr. Teal answered that the amendment could be changed after
it had been sent for viewing by LFD, but once the amendment
had been submitted it could not be changed. He explained
that it would prevent the potential for an amendment to be
edited while LFD was loading it.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for verification that amendments
could be shared with other committee members before being
submitted.
Mr. Teal replied that the amendments could be shared at any
time and cosponsors could be added. That process was
between legislators' offices and was not viewed by LFD.
Representative Wilson asked about looking at positions but
not PCNs [position control numbers] that were funded with
half general funds and half federal funds. With the
assumption that federal funds could probably be put into
other positions still in the department, she asked if it
was possible to pay the salary with all general funds. She
remarked that the department would most likely determine a
way to utilize the federal funds. Alternatively, she
wondered if it had to match the positions.
Mr. Teal answered that an amendment did not have to be
matched. For example, there was a governor's amendment
asking for new positions. It was possible to reverse the
whole thing or choose up to ten different fund codes. He
detailed that it was possible to use general funds but not
the federal funds. The maker of the amendment could chose
whatever option they wanted.
Representative Wilson assumed the best way to do it would
be include information in the explanation about the
rationale for the change.
Mr. Teal answered in the affirmative. The goal was to have
an explanation that headed off questions in the committee.
Theoretically it would save time in committee.
3:09:06 PM
Co-Chair Seaton thought it was important for members to
understand how the process worked. He described the process
the committee would use to develop the operating budget. He
read from a prepared statement:
Subcommittees are in the process of closing out and
forwarding their recommendations to House Finance.
When each department's subcommittee report is
scheduled in the House Finance the subcommittee chair
will describe the subcommittee's recommendations.
Then, if amendments were recommended, House Finance
will take up those amendments using the Legislative
Finance amendment report instead of the packets of
amendments that were used in prior sessions. House
Finance will also see the statutory changes proposed
by the subcommittee chairs. Those statutory changes
are listed and briefly explained in the subcommittee
narrative reports and each subcommittee chair will
need to submit their statutory recommendations to each
affected policy committee. We're not voting on those,
those are recommendations that come from the
subcommittee.
In certain circumstances there will be language
amendments that I will propose in addition to the
subcommittee recommended amendments. Those will come
with each department. As Mr. Teal mentioned, I will
have two additional amendments proposed for the
Department of Revenue that we will take up tomorrow
and they're included in the Legislative Finance report
that you have in the file and you should have three
files on your desk. After we go through all of the
subcommittee reports I will also bring forward other
language amendments for the statewide items. That will
be at the end of the process. I just want to reiterate
what Mr. Teal has said in how this is going to
progress. Then we will have a new committee substitute
drafted at that point - this is after we incorporate
the subcommittee proposals and the language amendments
that will generate the CS. Once the committee
substitute is before us, we will take public testimony
on those amendments. After public testimony we will
then take up round two amendments. Any additional
budget amendments from House Finance Committee
members. Those amendments will need to be submitted
via the new operating budget amendment system.
3:12:05 PM
Representative Wilson referred to the DOR and observed
there were amendments. She did not see any amendments for
the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA). She
asked for verification that if members did not see any
amendments, someone would give the subcommittee report, but
there would be no accompanying amendments.
Co-Chair Seaton noted there were two amendments [for DOR]
that would be generated in the new system.
Mr. Teal showed the LFD website (on the projector screen)
related to subcommittee reports. The items would be posted
as subcommittees closed out as they were reported out of
committee. He pointed out that the Department of
Administration, Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development, Office of the Governor, DMVA, and DOR
had all closed out thus far. Once a department subcommittee
closed out LFD would post the transaction detail,
narrative, and amendment packets. He used DOR as an example
and pointed to the two amendments passed out of
subcommittee (one related to mental health and the other
related to the Tax Division). Subcommittee amendment
packets would also be included on the website. He looked at
the transaction report for DOR and explained that there
were now four amendments - one of the amendments involved
language. He explained that one of the additional
amendments would move paternity testing money from the
language section of the bill to Section 1. The amendments
would be voted on by the full committee. Attached
supporting documents would be the actual Legislative Legal
Services amendment. Any other backup would be attached and
would be in members' packets. The system gave the public
and all legislators the ability to look at amendments well
in advance before they were taken up during the meeting. He
explained that the new system should rectify the past
problem where amendments that members had not seen were
printed right before a meeting.
3:15:54 PM
Representative Wilson asked about DMVA.
Co-Chair Seaton noted members should have the DMVA material
in their packets.
Representative Wilson surmised that unlike the DOR example,
members would not see amendments written for DMVA. She
believed the information shown on the website reflected the
amendment instead. She explained that the DOR amendment
looked more like a format the committee was used to seeing.
Mr. Teal answered in the affirmative. He explained that the
website was showing the amendments that were exactly as
passed out by the subcommittee because there were no
language amendments. The subcommittees had purview over the
numbers section of the bill. He elaborated that DOR had two
separate amendments because language was involved. The
website showed what had been done with the decrement and
the transaction type was "wordage," which meant there was
intent added by the committee. Members would have an
opportunity to see the information early and vote on it.
Representative Wilson thought it would be difficult for the
public to understand. She referred to DOR and noted there
were two different types of papers [in the packets]. She
asked for verification that the amendments the committee
was used to seeing pertained only to the language, but
amendments related to the numbers section would appear like
the ones they had just seen for DMVA.
Mr. Teal answered that the "L" in front of the amendment
number was a signal there was backup material. The backup
or supporting documentation would be the amendment prepared
by Legislative Legal Services. The trouble with the
amendment on the screen (shown as a typical amendment with
page references from Legislative Legal Services) was that
most people including finance committee members, had no
idea what the page references meant. Much of the language
was conforming and the amendment did not specify what the
change did. The action of the amendment was actually
described in the new system. The DOR amendment he looked at
moved the cost recovery for paternity testing from language
to Section 1. Hopefully it would be easier for committee
members and the public to understand amendments.
3:19:38 PM
Co-Chair Seaton believed that in the past the language
section changes all appeared in a CS only. He detailed that
amendments had not been seen by other finance members and
the public. The new system would bring all of the
amendments in front of the committee individually.
Representative Wilson appreciated what the chairs were
trying to do. She wanted to ensure they were not looking at
two different types of amendments. She did not want to miss
anything. She thanked the chair for his latitude.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the labeling contingency for the
amendments. The "L" in front of an amendment number
indicated the amendment was a language amendment from the
subcommittee chair of the operating budget. Amendments with
no "L" came from the numbers section, which would be in
subcommittee reports. He furthered that instead of having
the language changes presented at the end in a CS, any
language amendments would be included in members' packets.
He added that statewide amendments would be wrapped into
the language section at the end and would all come before
the committee.
Representative Thompson referred to the subcommittee
reports' narrative, which included recommendations that a
standing committee change statutes for a particular item.
He observed there were quite a few listed. He asked if
members were allowed to object to the items in the process.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that the recommendations came
forward from the subcommittee chair. If a legislator
disagreed they could offer a preferred format in the form
of a bill. He clarified that the committee would not be
debating the recommendations by the subcommittee. If
someone disagreed they could communicate to the standing
committee chair or to members and the standing committee
may not go forward with the recommendation. Every House
member had the opportunity to have the input into all
committees and on the House floor. A legislator could
always propose a statutory amendment in the form of
legislation. The goal was to consolidate and look at
budgetary impacts and make recommendations to standing
committees to clean up statutes and get rid of indirect
expenditures. The recommendations would be made by
subcommittee chairs directly to the standing committee. The
information would get reported, but the House Finance
Committee would not discuss and vote on the items that
would come forward as subcommittee recommendations.
HB 57 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 59 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:24:44 PM
Co-Chair Seaton announced that it was Mr. Teal's birthday.
The co-chairs presented Mr. Teal with a present.
Co-Chair Seaton addressed the schedule for the meeting the
following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:26:59 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:26 p.m.