Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/18/1996 03:12 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 18, 1996
3:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 522
"An Act relating to employer drug and alcohol testing programs."
- PASSED CSHB 522(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 522
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/19/96 2804 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/19/96 2804 (H) HES, LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
04/16/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/16/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/18/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
LYNN STIMLER, Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska
P.O. Box 201844
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: (907) 258-0044
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 522(HES)
MATTHEW FAGNANI, President
Allvest Laboratories
611 East 12th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-6662
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 522(HES)
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 522(HES)
DIRK NELSON, Licensed clinical social worker and
licensed marital and family therapist
P.O. Box 2347
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5894
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 522(HES)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-43, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE at 3:12 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey,
Rokeberg and Davis. Members absent were Representatives Vezey,
Robinson and Brice. A quorum was present to conduct business. He
announced the calendar was HB 522, Employer Drug Testing Program.
HB 522 - EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING PROGRAM
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced this was the second hearing on HB 522 and
the committee had before them a committee substitute.
CO-CHAIR CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 522, Version 9
LS1688\C, Cramer, dated 4/17/96 as the working draft. Hearing no
objection, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE advised that the committee would begin taking
testimony from Anchorage via teleconference.
Number 101
LYNN STIMLER, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of
Alaska, testified that she had spent quite a bit of time since the
last hearing on HB 522 consulting with the national ACLU. The
individual that works on the employment law project had some
suggestions which she would convey to the committee. First, on
page 5, line 26, she suggested ending the sentence after "United
States Department of Health and Human Services". That way all the
employers would be held to the NIDA standard which is the National
Institute for Drug Abuse. She thought one of the protections
given to employees then is to be sure that when they are losing
their cause of action, the employer would need to use the most
highly developed testing system and the federal system is well
regarded even by those who primarily represent employees. She
thought there was a need for more information than what she had
been able to gather in the last two days about the differences
between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services test and
the College of American Pathologists and what kind of state tests
there would be, how a laboratory would be certified and those types
of questions.
MS. STIMLER said to go along with the above, she was suggesting
that page 5, line 30, be changed to read to something on the order
of, "The second or confirmatory drug test shall be conducted in
accordance with the procedures approved by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services." In other words, that
would tie the two together. With regard to the issue of the United
States Department of Health and Human Services testing as compared
to the American Academy of Pathology, she said there may be a
state-employed physician at the Department of Health and Human
Services who could help with that analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE joined the meeting at 3:17 p.m.
MS. STIMLER referred to page 2, lines 20-31, and said the strongest
objection the ACLU has right now is the issue of doing away with
actions for defamation, libel, slander, and damage to reputation as
established by law. The ACLU particularly objects to lines 28 and
29, but she thought the libel and defamation law is very strong
right now and strongly protects the employer already from these
actions. She thought some advice should be sought from the
Department of Law on the scenario where "if you have an employee
who ends up being one of the unlikely false positive people --
let's make it simpler -- he has a drug test that was legitimate and
he tested positive for marijuana and the employer, in a vindictive
or retaliatory manner, broadcasted that he drug tested positive for
heroin or cocaine." She thought that under Section 23.10.610 as
written, the employee would have no action against the intentional
defamation. She wasn't sure that was the intention of the
committee, but suggested the entire subsection be reviewed by the
Department of Law to see if the current law is sufficient and
whether there would be exceptions that the committee really
wouldn't want.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if that wasn't answered on page 2, line 5,
"unless the employer's action was based on a false positive test
result and the employer knew or clearly should have known that the
result was in error..."
MS. STIMLER said it is complicated because some of the lawyers that
analyzed this issue think that an intentional disclosure under
certain circumstances would still bar the employee from suing due
to the way this bill is written. She commented that the attorney
at the national ACLU was still reviewing the issue, but he was very
concerned that that standard would not bar the scenario she had
just presented, which was the legitimate positive marijuana test
but the employer broadcasted that the person was using heroin or
cocaine.
MS. STIMLER thought the committee might want to go to the
Department of Law regarding the complicated area of the ADA. She
said the ADA federally applies to employers with more than 15
employees. There is a section of the ADA that protects individuals
who are "erroneously regarded as engaging in such use, but are not
actually engaging in the use." What this means is that under the
ADA, if an employee tests positive for an illegal use of drugs, but
in fact isn't using drugs and can prove it, and is either denied a
job or discharged on the basis of the false positive, the
individual is considered a victim of illegal discrimination under
the ADA's definition of disability. This is sometimes called the
"perception exception" because although the test is false, an
individual isn't really impaired but the individual is protected by
the ADA because the employer perceived the individual is impaired
and acts like that. The ACLU sees some problems with the ADA that
should probably be looked at by the Department of Law. First, she
said, "Let's just assume for the sake of discussion that I've
interpreted the ADA right. That means if you have a small employer
in Alaska, their employees aren't going to have any rate of
recourse for a false positive under the statute we're putting in,
but someone in a larger company that's subject to the federal law,
would. That probably sets up an equal protection question. Now,
the other thing is there's Alaska law that mimics the ADA in many
ways and it provides for Alaskan companies with two or more
employees under certain circumstances that fall under certain
provisions of the ADA, and I don't know all the answers because we
haven't had much time." She felt those were the germane issues
under the ADA.
Number 641
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY referred to the "perception exception" and asked if
Ms. Stimler was saying that it was after a person had a drug test
and their employer perceives that the person is on drugs because of
a disability?
MS. STIMLER responded yes, that's right but explained that the word
"perception" is used in a slang way to describe this section of the
ADA in the Law Review. It means that normally the ADA absolutely
permits drug testing.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the perception is for the employer
not the employee.
MS. STIMLER said it's called a perception because the employer
makes an act based on a false perception.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she understood there was an individual that
ate some crackers after coming up with a false positive test.
MS. STIMLER said she had asked a physician in Anchorage to do a
complete med line search because she believed there had been
testimony from Mr. Fagnani that normal foods and drugs didn't turn
out false positive tests on a gas chromatography test. She
believed that Co-Chair Toohey had a copy of a medical article that
talks about an individual who ate a half-box of Sociable snack
crackers and even on the second gas chromatography set at the most
fine tuning, turned up positive.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that Mr. Fagnani had addressed that and the
information that is to be distributed by the employer will include
a list of foods and/or over-the-counter medications that will show
a positive test.
MS. STIMLER said the only problem with that is from a medical
perspective, everyone knows what a drug test tests; a drug test
looks for the breakdown products of drugs. For example, if a
person is taking cocaine, the test doesn't say for sure it's
cocaine, it looks at the metabolite breakdown. The reason for some
false positives is because the breakdown product of the food or the
legal drug is the same as the illegal drug. Therefore, she thought
it would be very difficult to come up with a complete list of
everything that could turn up a false positive.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented she would ask Mr. Fagnani who was
standing by on teleconference, to address that. She didn't believe
there were that many foods which would come up with a composite in
a person's urine that would be indicative of cocaine use.
MS. STIMLER pointed out that she wasn't a doctor nor was Mr.
Fagnani, so she didn't think they were the appropriate people to be
giving advice on that issue.
Number 849
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG said he was curious about Ms.
Stimler's remarks regarding the federal ADA and the "perception
exception." He asked if the entire potential cause of action was
only for a previously defined disabled person or does, in fact,
this erroneous false positive test have the effect of creating a
person who would now be disabled?
MS. STIMLER noted it was a very complicated issue which was the
basis for her suggestion to get some advice from the Department of
Law. As she understood the Law Review article, it creates a new
class. The disability is because the individual is a victim of
illegal discrimination under ADA's definition of disability. In
other words, the fact that the employer perceived them to be
disabled. Having work is considered one of the categories the ADA
used, so because the individual lost work due to the false
positive, then the person falls into the ADA. It's not someone who
needs to have any history of drugs previously.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that's a clear example of why the
federal law needs to be amended.
MS. STIMLER said there is an Alaska Supreme Court case, Braun v.
Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank, which is on point
that states an employer who fires an employee for testing positive
on a drug test is protected as long as the firing isn't arbitrary,
capricious, illegal or based on facts that weren't supported by
substantial evidence. The point she wanted to raise for the
committee is whether we really want to strip away the right of
employees to make a claim against an employer who arbitrarily,
capriciously or illegally fires an employee. Even without this
legislation, the employer is already protected.
MS. STIMLER expressed concern with Mr. Fagnani in that as she views
the situation, Allvest stands to gain quite a substantial amount of
business with the passage of this legislation where there will be
a lot more employers able to do drug testing. She was concerned
about the appearance that he is giving the committee advice and
answering questions. She wondered if there were other individuals
from the Division of Public Health or an individual from the
federal government specializing in drug testing for example, that
could be consulted on this complicated issue. She wasn't speaking
out of disrespect for Mr. Fagnani, but simply because the issue is
very complicated.
Number 1038
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions for Ms. Stimler.
Hearing none, he asked Mr. Fagnani to present his testimony.
Number 1054
MATTHEW FAGNANI, President, Allvest Laboratories, said he would
like to address some of the issues raised by Ms. Stimler. First,
regarding the conflict of interest, he said he would agree with the
ACLU if he was the author of the legislation; he is only the
carrier of this legislation. He offered for the committee's
information that this legislation is currently on the books in
Utah, Arizona and Florida; it is verbatim form that was presented
to the committee.
MR. FAGNANI said he had received a copy of the draft committee
substitute and solicited the advice of his attorney on Section
23.10.600, Employer Protection from Litigation, versus the ACLU's
objection on Section 23.10.610, Limits on Causes of Action for
Disclosures. He noted that it took some time to digest the
meanings of it, but he perceptually disagrees with the ACLU's
interpretation of that regulation. Based on the ACLU, Section
23.10.600 sets up the acts of good faith by an employer and
actually lays down why an employee cannot sue, including a false
positive test. Mr. Fagnani said if Section 2 were to be
eliminated, the employee's rights to sue are taken away because the
employer could have in Section 1 a false positive and still be
acting in good faith. Therefore, the employee would not have any
recourse; that's why it is important to leave in Section 2 because
it deals directly with false positives. In breaking this down to
reality based legislation, Mr. Fagnani said in his six years of
performing drug and alcohol testing services in Alaska, Allvest has
not had a false positive report issued. He noted they have done
retests of original samples in alternate laboratories of the
employee's choice and the results have always come out as reported
originally. He commented that medical testing today has reached
such high tech standard.
MR. FAGNANI applauded the ACLU in one regard; they did recognize
that mandatory certification was an important issue. He said he
would speak to that issue later, but first he wanted to talk about
why the false positives don't occur as frequently as what the
committee was being led to believe. As he testified at the last
meeting, each of the tests that are going to be conducted by
employers will have an initial cutoff level for the first test, the
screening test. For instance, marijuana in this case is set at 50
nanograms and cocaine at 300 nanograms. The second test, the gas
chromatography mass spectrometry, the cutoff level for a test to be
considered positive is 15 nanograms. So Allvest goes all the way
down to 15 nanograms to verify the sample is positive or there is
a fingerprint of the drug there. He explained the gas
chromatography test actually looks for the physical molecular
structure of the chemical of the drug itself.
MR. FAGNANI said with regard to the laboratory certification, he
again applauded the ACLU for requiring NIDA standards, but he
thought employer's options for choice were being limited by taking
out the CAP certification. He had requested a report from a
toxicologist, Dr. Fran Urry, PhD. in anticipation of questions the
committee might have on analytical procedures. He read a section
of the report dealing with laboratory credentials and review for
the committee. Dr. Urry speaks to the substantial contribution to
the maintenance and quality service is the participation in a
national (indisc.) employment drug testing credentialing program.
Dr. Urry says, "The federal government, through the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), of the
Department of Health & Human Services, operates a national
laboratory certification program through whom laboratories become
certified to perform federally regulated drug testing." Mr.
Fagnani commented that is the NIDA's testing that Ms. Stimler
referred to. Dr. Urry's report continues, "The College of America
Pathologists operates a similar program for laboratories who want
accreditation from them for private sector testing. Both programs
require satisfactory submission of an application and a completion
of three cycles of performance testing in which substances of
unknown contents are sent to the laboratory and the laboratory must
successfully test and report them. The laboratory is subject to an
on-site inspection by a field of inspectors and must pass to
perfection and any deficiencies must be remedied prior to
certification and accreditation." Mr. Fagnani said the report goes
on to discuss the on-site inspection. One of the requirements the
Department of Transportation (DOT) has as a fail safe measure to
make sure that false positives do not occur is that if the
laboratory certified by SAMHSA were to report a test result that
did not re-test appropriately or properly and was reported back to
the employer, the re-test is taken from the original sample and
sent to an alternate laboratory of choice. That is standard
procedure now in the industry. If that test result came back
negative, then that laboratory by NIDA standards would be shut down
and would have to undergo inspection and any tests that were done
after the original test would be in question and would have to be
reanalyzed or re-collected. He commented that was presently on the
federal books. That is probably part of the reason why there isn't
a high degree of false positives coming out of these laboratories.
He thought this whole argument on false positives becomes moot
because in Alaska, there has never been a case where that has
occurred with the use of these DOT certified labs. He said he
would argue that lines 20-31 on page 2, Section 23.10.610 needs to
be left in because that is the employee's right to question the
results of the test. He hastened to add that he is not an
attorney, but he was repeating what his attorney had advised him.
He urged the committee to pass the bill on to the next committee.
He reiterated that this legislation is on the books in Arizona,
Utah and Florida and it is good legislation. With regard to what
this does for employers, it gives the employers the opportunity to
establish this as part of their safety programs without the fear of
being litigated against. He pointed out that in our society today,
anybody can litigate based on any whim.
Number 1494
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if it was correct that Allvest had never had
a false positive test.
MR. FAGNANI said that was correct.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Dwight Perkins from the Department of Labor
if there was a problem in Alaska.
Number 1510
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor, said he couldn't answer that directly because
he didn't know if it has been or has not been a problem. Speaking
for the Department of Labor, he couldn't give Co-Chair Toohey an
answer because he didn't know.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the department had a list of companies in
Alaska that do drug testing?
MR. PERKINS said he could get that information for the committee.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked him to inquire of the companies how many
false positive results they had had and how many people had been
fired because of being falsely accused of marijuana or alcohol use.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thought Mr. Fagnani had testified there
were no laboratories in Alaska; everything was sent outside.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Fagnani if that was correct.
MR. FAGNANI said that was correct; there are no longer any
laboratories, other than hospitals and they don't really do
workplace testing, but rather mostly medical tests or treatment.
There are no laboratories in Alaska doing drug and alcohol testing;
all the samples are sent outside to certified laboratories for
testing. In response to Co-Chair Toohey's question to Mr. Perkins,
he could say with some certainty that there has not been a false
positive issued from any one of his competitors because if there
had been, it would have drawn national spotlight to the laboratory
in question and the knowledge would not have been shielded from
Allvest or anyone else in the industry. To his knowledge, there
had not been a false positive test result issued by any vendor
providing similar types of services as Allvest.
MR. PERKINS shared a personal experience with committee members of
when he was working in the private sector and was required to take
a urine test. The manufacturer had a bad batch and a positive
result came back from Seattle and the employer had another test
done. However, because everyone was coming up positive, they
started doing some checking and found that one part of the test got
mixed up with another part of a different test so they weren't of
the same box. It had nothing to do with the tester or the
employee, but human error. He pointed out that happened in Juneau
and it was not in the national spotlight.
Number 1680
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Fagnani to comment on Mr. Perkins'
situation.
MR. FAGNANI inquired as to what year that incident incurred.
MR. PERKINS said it was three years ago in Juneau.
MR. FAGNANI responded he would venture to say the laboratory that
did the original testing was not a CAP certified lab and was not a
NIDA or SAMHSA certified lab. There are laboratories that are not
certified and he once again pointed out the importance of having
the laboratories certified. It's for that reason alone, that a
certified scientist or laboratory manager would have recognized
that it was a bad batch of reagents.
MR. PERKINS noted that Bartlett Memorial Hospital in Juneau had
done the testing for the employer, and he assumed the hospital did
use a certified testing facility in Seattle.
MR. FAGNANI said they may or may not. He added it was important to
keep in mind that whenever a laboratory analysis is done there is
a positive and a negative sample on the instrument along with the
regular sample. As long as the positive and negative samples react
the way the manufacturer's reagent intend it to, then there would
be a proper test. He commented there are 100 war stories that
people can attest to testing positive for marijuana by taking
ibuprofen, but unless a person dates some of these incidents and
knows what the laboratories were years ago, people could test
positive for marijuana by taking ibuprofen but it could not be
confirmed by using gas chromatography. He said now we're into the
ninth or tenth generation of testing for reagents and that is no
longer an issue.
MR. PERKINS said the reason he shared his personal experience was
not to argue with Mr. Fagnani or speak negatively on Allvest's
testing, but to point out that human error does happen and it did
not draw national attention.
Number 1798
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thought Mr. Fagnani had said it would bring national
attention to the laboratory.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if under this legislation an employee
could sue a laboratory.
MR. FAGNANI said he didn't know the answer, but he imagined they
could sue anybody they wanted.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented the employers are being held
harmless, but he questioned if the labs were being held harmless.
MR. FAGNANI replied not under this language. Mr. Fagnani said as
a provider of these services, Allvest provides a $1 million binder
per incidence from the lab and the physician that reviews their
results. That is on file in their office because they are held to
the highest standards, so they know the lab is adequately (indisc.)
to defend their results. He added that as a provider of these
services, under federal law he has to submit 3 blind samples for
every 100 tests Allvest does and 25 percent of them have to be
spiked with an known quantity of drugs. They are sent to the
SAMHSA certified labs and to date they have not had one come back
that was not supposed to come back the way it was originally sent
in.
DIRK NELSON, Licensed clinical social worker and licensed marital
and family therapist, said over the last two years he'd had a
significant amount of development in policies and procedures manual
issues as an ex-city employee regarding proposed drug testing
policies. He commented there were a number of previously existing
cases at the state Supreme Court level, and he was concerned if
this legislation would be consistent with the state Supreme Court's
finding regarding safety sensitive positions which is also the
national Supreme Court's finding that this has not necessarily been
opened up carte blanche. Rather it seems to have been stated that
people testing must rely upon a safety sensitive issue without
there being probable cause in that the court has also concluded
that urine analysis is search and seizure. He wondered if there
were violations of the Fourth Amendment issues by an employer. In
other words, testing is done on persons who are not legally
eligible to be tested or otherwise unjust search is conducted. He
asked if those employees would be barred from seeking civil damages
for violation of their federal Fourth Amendment issues? He thought
this was a question that should be presented to the Department of
Law.
Number 1958
MR. NELSON said he, too, had some concern about Mr. Fagnani's
interest in that he believed Representative Kott wrote this
legislation for someone whom his office would not state who the
constituent was requesting it. He didn't believe Allvest was as
detached from this legislation as they might otherwise present.
MR. NELSON commented that the Alaska State Constitution's privacy
section is one of the strongest, if not the strongest in the
Nation. There was a decision in 1975 that has never been
overturned and currently cases are being dismissed from court
regarding possession of small amounts of marijuana in the home.
That came up in Lukey v. Nabors and the only reason that wasn't an
issue was because of the safety sensitive nature of their position.
Mr. Nelson said that gets into the area of disparity in treatment
between alcohol testing and drug testing in that the Federal Drug
Free Workplace Act focused on impairment on the job. It was very
specific in that regard. The breathalyzer process is used with
alcohol testing which clearly ascertains current impairment. At
the employee's request, a more reliable test may be sought such as
a blood test; however, that cannot be put upon a person because of
the medical procedure violation regarding Fourth Amendment issues.
He commented that with urine analyses, however, we're no longer
talking about current impairment, but metabolites that might simply
reflect what an employee did five days ago. Clearly, it has
nothing to do with impairment on the job and yet this person's
livelihood may be severed for engaging in an activity on a Saturday
night at home that the state Constitution says is acceptable. In
many cases, it's being inferred that the person is impaired because
of the metabolites. He encouraged the committee to read some
writings of Dr. John Morgan, Professor of Pharmacology at New York
City of Medicine dealing with the significance of metabolites. He
also mentioned the federal Department of Transportation's study
entitled "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance" which indicates
that marijuana-influenced drivers came out responsible for fewer
lethal accidents than drug free drivers.
Number 2145
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Fagnani if he could identify the
metabolites in urine after five days?
MR. FAGNANI said no he couldn't. He went on to explain that drug
testing shows evidence of use; it doesn't show levels of
impairment. The tests are based on anything greater than the
screen. He could not attest to how much marijuana makes a person
act silly or not.
Number 2170
MR. NELSON said with regard to the accuracy of testing, it's
accepted that if a person was clean of all substances for two
months, the person could smoke a joint on the way to a drug testing
and test negative. Likewise, depending on the degree of use, a
person could test positive five days after the fact and any where
up to 30 days after the fact depending on upon the amount of fatty
tissue in a person's body. Obese people will tend to test
positive, particularly for marijuana, much longer than people who
are not overweight because PHC metabolites adhere to fatty tissues
in the body.
Number 2203
CO-CHAIR BUNDE closed the meeting to public testimony. He noted
that questions had been raised regarding legal issues which were
beyond the parameters of this committee. Therefore, if committee
members decided to move the bill out of committee, he would like to
confer with the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee to determine if they would entertain referral
of this bill to the Judiciary Committee.
Number 2244
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would move CSHB 522(HES) with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note from the HESS
Committee with the understanding that the Labor & Commerce
Committee would request and receive testimony from the Department
of Law regarding the issues that were raised.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thought this bill had great merits, but needed
additional work.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said a motion had been made to move CSHB 522(HES)
with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House HESS
Committee, Co-Chair Bunde adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|