ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 2009
2:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to ballot initiative proposal applications and
to ballot initiatives."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to murder; authorizing capital punishment,
classifying murder in the first degree as a capital felony, and
allowing the imposition of the death penalty for certain
murders; establishing sentencing procedures for capital
felonies; and amending Rules 32, 32.1, and 32.3, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and Rules 204, 209, 210, and 212, Alaska
Rules of Appellate Procedure."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 36
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOHANSEN, MILLETT, WILSON
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) STA, JUD
03/25/09 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/25/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/09 (H) JUD, FIN
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/06/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 9
SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) JUD, FIN
02/23/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/23/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/25/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/25/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/25/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/02/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/02/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
03/23/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/23/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/30/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
03/30/09 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JASON BRUNE, Executive Director
Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 36.
JEANINE ST. JOHN, President
Alaska Support Industry Alliance ("the Alliance")
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 36.
CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Assistant Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
SSHB 36.
GLENN M. PRAX
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns during discussion of
SSHB 36.
SUSAN S. McLEAN, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of proposed amendments to HB 9.
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the drafter, responded to
questions during discussion of proposed amendments to HB 9.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:31:45 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:31 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Lynn,
Gruenberg, and Coghill were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gatto and Holmes arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 36 - INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/PROCEDURES
2:32:11 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act relating to
ballot initiative proposal applications and to ballot
initiatives."
2:32:34 PM
JASON BRUNE, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
for Alaska, Inc. (RDC), after mentioning that he would be
testifying in support of SSHB 36, provided members with
information about the RDC. He then said that although the RDC
may question the appropriateness and the role of the initiative
process as a means of governing, the RDC appreciates the
democratic rights of Alaskans to change state law through the
initiative process. Over the last few years, however, a number
of proposed initiatives have been brought forward that have not
had the best interests of the state or its citizens in mind, and
their sponsors have used tactics during the signature-gathering
phase that mislead the public and misconstrued the issues and
impacts at play, he opined. The RDC believes that openness and
transparency must be at the forefront of good government, and
SSHB 36 will require both public and legislative hearings for
initiatives; this is a good idea, particularly given that the
unintended consequences of laws the legislature attempts to pass
are usually vetted during the numerous hearings, public
testimony, and floor debates that are part of the legislative
process.
MR. BRUNE noted that legislators, the people who are elected to
pass state laws, are required to disclose how they raise and
spend money. Why shouldn't those who are attempting to change
state law through the initiative process also be subject to that
same standard? Why shouldn't they, too, be required to disclose
the source of their funding during the signature-gathering phase
of the initiative process? "This" openness and transparency
will bring to light the agendas of initiative sponsors, he
remarked, adding that the RDC would very much oppose any
amendment that would preclude "foreign" contributions for
initiatives, because a number of foreign companies invest in
Alaska and employ Alaskans and so should be allowed to
participate in the initiative process. He suggested that in
addition to requiring signature gatherers to carry the entirety
of a proposed initiative with them, SSHB 36 should be amended
such that signature gatherers would also be required to tell the
truth.
MR. BRUNE opined, "We must bring openness and transparency back
to this process," and noted that SSHB 36 would preclude
signature gatherers from collecting signatures for more than one
initiative at a time, adding that he's seen signature gatherers
blur the lines between different initiatives for which they're
collecting signatures, opining that such behavior is a
disservice to the public; SSHB 36 would prevent intentional
muddying of the waters. In conclusion, he said he is not
confident that signature gatherers will police themselves,
opined that standards must be instituted to ensure a candid
initiative process, characterized SSHB 36 as an important bill -
both for the state and for the RDC's members - and urged the
committee to support SSHB 36.
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to comments about the 2006 ballot
initiative regarding cruise ship taxation, regulation, and
disclosure, offered his belief that when that initiative was
approved for placement on the ballot, the lieutenant governor
failed in his duty to restrict the initiative to a single
subject, and that that's what lead to any confusion regarding
what that initiative was about.
MR. BRUNE, in response to questions, reiterated his belief that
foreign companies that invest in Alaska have a vested interest
in the initiative process, and offered his understanding that
currently foreign companies and their employees - regardless of
where they reside - can contribute to initiatives.
2:39:23 PM
JEANINE ST. JOHN, President, Alaska Support Industry Alliance
("the Alliance"), provided information about the Alliance, and
relayed that she would be speaking in support SSHB 36, and that
the Alliance supports the constitutional right of Alaskans to
utilize the initiative process when they believe they are not
being effectively represented. However, members of the Alliance
are quite concerned about what she characterized as the abusive
use of the ballot initiative process. She offered her belief
that SSHB 36 will strengthen that process by ensuring that the
public is clearly aware of what she called "the true intent" and
funding sources of any initiative. She said it's unfortunate
that the initiative process has become a way for special
interests to manipulate state law, and expressed appreciation
for the joint prime sponsors' intent to "amend the process and
provide a truly open and transparent initiative process."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what effect Section 2 would have.
2:43:07 PM
CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Assistant Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), offered
her understanding that Section 2 just requires [initiative
sponsors] to register as a group [with the APOC] prior to making
an expenditure; currently initiative sponsors are already
required to register [with the APOC]. In response to another
question, she offered her belief that Section 3 won't affect
existing limitations or who can contribute to ballot initiative
groups, and that AS 15.13.065 addresses ballot initiatives in
municipal elections.
MS. ELLINGSON, in response to further questions, indicated that
Section 5 simply mirrors language currently in AS 15.13.110(e)
and speaks to the issue of quarterly reports, and that the
proposed changes to the definitions of "contribution" and
"expenditure" are intended to ensure that reporting occurs
earlier in the ballot initiative process and shouldn't affect
the nature of donations or spending.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:47 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.
MS. ELLINGSON, in response to a further question, offered her
understanding that Section 1 pertains to when a person makes a
contribution, whereas Sections 6 and 7, respectively, change the
definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure".
2:50:01 PM
GLENN M. PRAX indicated that he has some concerns with SSHB 36,
and opined that the recent changes to Alaska's ballot initiative
laws have made the process much more difficult. He relayed that
when he was actively involved in the initiative process a number
of years ago, "citizen-driven groups" [were the primary
participants], but such groups seem to be obsolete now. He
cautioned the committee to be careful that the bill doesn't go
further than necessary or make the initiative process only
accessible to "the targeted groups." He surmised that requiring
initiative sponsors to hold public hearings on initiatives would
result in a perfunctory exercise that doesn't provide the value
expected. In conclusion, he said he does think that there is
some value in providing more transparency with regard to
contributors, but again cautioned against going too far with
SSHB 36 and implementing things that won't really work out as
expected.
CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony on SSHB 36.
[SSHB 36 was held over.]
HB 9 - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
2:53:46 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 9, "An Act relating to murder; authorizing
capital punishment, classifying murder in the first degree as a
capital felony, and allowing the imposition of the death penalty
for certain murders; establishing sentencing procedures for
capital felonies; and amending Rules 32, 32.1, and 32.3, Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules 204, 209, 210, and 212,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure." [Before the committee was
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 9, Version 26-
LS0036\E, Luckhaupt, 2/18/09, which had been adopted as the work
draft on 2/23/09.]
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that public testimony on HB 9 had been closed
[during a previous meeting on the bill].
CHAIR RAMRAS then turned the committee's attention to
Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS0036\E.7, Luckhaupt, 3/23/09, which
read:
Page 15, line 11, following "fire fighter,":
Insert "emergency medical technician, paramedic,
ambulance attendant,"
2:57:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that Amendment 1 would provide
the same protection to emergency medical technicians,
paramedics, and ambulance attendants as the bill currently
provides to peace officers, firefighters, and corrections
employees.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:58:11 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS then turned the committee's attention to Amendment
2, labeled 26-LS0036\E.6, Luckhaupt, 3/23/09, which read:
Page 1, line 4, following the first occurrence of
"Rules":
Insert "16,"
Page 17, following line 29:
Insert new material to read:
"Sec. 12.58.070. Discovery. (a) Except as
provided in (b) of this section, Rule 16, Alaska Rules
of Criminal Procedure, applies to discovery in the
penalty phase of a capital felony prosecution if the
prosecution is seeking the death penalty.
(b) Thirty days before the guilt phase of a
capital felony case is scheduled to begin, the
prosecution and the defense shall provide to the
opposing party a list of witnesses, other than expert
witnesses, that the party is likely to call at the
penalty phase if the defendant is found guilty of a
charge that is the foundation for the death penalty.
In addition to the witness lists, the parties shall
include the witnesses' written or recorded statements,
a summary of any other statements, and a summary of
the testimony the witness will provide the court.
(c) Nothing in this section affects discovery
related to expert witnesses under Rule 16, Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure."
Page 23, following line 1:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) AS 12.58.070, added by sec. 21 of this Act,
has the effect of modifying Rule 16, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, by providing for the exchange of
the names of witnesses, their written or recorded
statements, and summaries of their testimony by the
prosecution and defense for the penalty phase of a
capital felony death penalty prosecution."
The committee took an at-ease from 2:59 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
3:00:20 PM
SUSAN S. McLEAN, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal
Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
explained that the purpose of Amendment 2 is to provide for
reciprocal discovery 30 days before the penalty phase of a death
penalty case. There is an exception, however, in that the rules
pertaining to expert witnesses would remain the same; currently,
there is already reciprocal discovery regarding expert
witnesses. Amendment 2 is necessary, she indicated, because
under HB 9, or any capital punishment bill, the court must allow
the jury to consider any potentially mitigating information, and
this sometimes results in witnesses numbering in the hundreds;
if a person is convicted of a capital crime, it is fairly
ordinary to hear from everyone who's known the defendant from
kindergarten on up. The purpose of [Amendment 2] is to speed
the process along, and would pertain to the penalty phase of a
capital case - the most significant phase of such a case - and
both sides should be prepared to hear from witnesses.
MS. McLEAN said this is akin to current Rule 32.1 of the Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; this rule requires the defense to
give notice of the evidence that it intends to produce in
support of mitigating factors in the penalty phase. The State
also has to give notice of the evidence it intends to produce in
support of aggravating factors, and Amendment 2 provides for
reciprocity in that arena. Noting that she's heard a couple of
objections [to the concept of Amendment 2] based on the Alaska
Supreme Court case, Scott v. State, 519 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1974),
wherein the court said it is unconstitutional under the Alaska
State Constitution to require a defendant to provide evidence
which could bear on the question of his/her guilt, she pointed
out that once the case has entered the penalty phase, the
question of guilt has already been determined. She
acknowledged, though, that it could be argued that requiring
discovery 30 days before the guilt phase is over might bear on
the defendant's guilt; similar arguments have been made in
Washington and California wherein reciprocal discovery for the
penalty phase is required prior to the penalty phase being over.
MS. McLEAN said that what's been determined by the courts in
those states is that if the defendant has concern that what
he/she is about to provide for discovery may bear on the issue
of guilt, then he/she can be heard ex parte in camera, and the
court could then withhold some of that discovery, reserve ruling
until the guilt phase is over, and then, if the court decides
that the defendant's witnesses can come in, the State would be
entitled to a continuance in order to prepare to meet those
witnesses. She characterized Amendment 2 as a practical
amendment intended to move such cases along so as to get to the
penalty phase with both the State and the defendant already
preparing for the witnesses that will be heard in the penalty
phase. As a practical matter, many of those witnesses will only
be speaking to the defendant's character rather than to his/her
guilt.
MS. McLEAN offered her belief that there is nothing saying that
Amendment 2 would be unconstitutional. Again, Amendment 2
tracks the aforementioned Rule 32.1.
3:05:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she is not convinced that Amendment 2
is constitutional, particularly given that the same jury would
be seated for both the guilt phase and the penalty phase and
discovery would be required while the jury is still debating
guilt or innocence, and so she would therefore be voting "no" on
Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that Scott was followed by
another Alaska Supreme Court case, State v. Summerville, 948
P.2d 469 (Alaska 1997), and that nothing in the intervening [23
years] changed the Alaska Supreme Court's opinion on this
subject nor was there a dissenting opinion in either case. He
said:
I think that it's reading those cases too narrowly to
say that it only applies prior to the issue of guilt
or innocence. It would seem to me, particularly in a
capital case, which may be the paradigm - hypothetical
or factual situation - [that] the most serious
consequence may very well be, if it's used or required
- the waiver or the abrogation of that constitutional
right - in the penalty phase, when the person may be
put to death. I think that this is extremely serious,
and I doubt whether the [Alaska] Supreme Court would
change its mind just because guilt had already been
established. I don't think our [Alaska] Supreme Court
looks at things so technically; other supreme courts
... might do so, but I don't think ours would.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then asked whether the DOL has prepared
a fiscal note addressing the additional costs that would result
from a legal challenge to the provision established via
Amendment 2.
MS. McLEAN predicted that realistically, if HB 9 passes, the
State would have to defend the entire bill as soon as its
implementation is attempted.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Coghill,
Gatto, and Ramras voted in favor of Amendment 2.
Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
3:10:30 PM
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), in response to a question, explained that Alaska's
statute regarding the crime of murder in the first degree is
slightly broader than that of other states in that it includes
both murders committed with malice and other forms of murder
such as those involving extreme indifference to human life. As
a drafting matter, he indicated that he'd been instructed to
start with the statute pertaining to the crime of murder in the
first degree and then apply aggravating factors to it; this is a
common approach in some states, even though not all states have
a statute as broad as Alaska's.
MR. LUCKHAUPT, in response to comments and a question about
safeguards to prevent innocent people from being executed,
observed that Version E no longer requires a standard of proof
higher than beyond a reasonable doubt, adding that no other
state does either, nor does any other state currently require
that specific types of evidence be present. Version E requires
an appeal before the Alaska Supreme Court, and this is common in
other states as well. Under Version E, a jury has to find
aggravating factors that are not outweighed by mitigating
factors, and that the death penalty is the appropriate sentence;
he indicated that this "residual doubt standard" would allow a
jury to refrain from imposing the death penalty even when there
are aggravating factors that aren't outweighed by the mitigating
factors.
MR. LUCKHAUPT, in response to another question, explained that
there is language in Version E that implements the requirements
the U.S. Supreme Court set out in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S.
304 (2002), with regard to mental retardation; in that case, the
court ruled that executing a mentally retarded defendant is
unconstitutional. Both existing law and provisions of the bill
address the issue of determining competency.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her understanding that Version E
would allow the State to execute minors.
MR. LUCKHAUPT indicated that it does not, and that such would be
unconstitutional [under another U.S. Supreme Court ruling -
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)]. In response to further
questions, he reiterated that it would be unconstitutional to
execute someone who's been found to be mentally incompetent,
indicating that such would be determined on a case-by-case
basis.
3:22:38 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 26-
LS0036\E.3, Luckhaupt, 3/18/09, which read:
Page 13, line 21, following "court.":
Insert "The attorney general may not elect to
seek the death penalty under this section unless the
state is prepared to present to the jury at trial
(1) biological evidence or deoxyribonucleic
acid evidence that links the defendant to the act of
murder;
(2) a videotaped voluntary confession by
the defendant to the murder; or
(3) a video recording that conclusively
links the defendant to the murder."
Page 14, line 13:
Delete "and"
Page 14, following line 13:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(3) that the state presented
(A) biological evidence or deoxyribonucleic
acid evidence that links the defendant to the act of
murder;
(B) a videotaped voluntary confession by
the defendant to the murder; or
(C) a video recording that conclusively
links the defendant to the murder;"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 14, line 29:
Delete "and"
Page 14, following line 29:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(3) that the state presented
(A) biological evidence or deoxyribonucleic
acid evidence that links the defendant to the act of
murder;
(B) a videotaped voluntary confession by
the defendant to the murder; or
(C) a video recording that conclusively
links the defendant to the murder;"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized Amendment 3 as instituting what he
called an "irrefutable evidence standard," explaining that under
Amendment 3, if no such evidence is present - that evidence
being either biological evidence or DNA evidence linking the
defendant to the murder, or a videotaped voluntary confession by
the defendant to the murder, or a video recording conclusively
linking the defendant to the murder - then the State may not
pursue the death penalty.
MS. McLEAN concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she appreciates the intent of
Amendment 3 but thinks it provides only a false sense of
security, particularly given prior testimony indicating that
there have been problems with maintaining the integrity of
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence and problems with false
voluntary confessions, and that there could be problems with
conclusively linking a defendant to a murder via a video
recording.
MS. McLEAN suggested that if Amendment 3 is adopted, then the
term "biological evidence" ought to be defined, adding that the
DOL has provided possible language for such a definition.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:25 p.m. to 3:26 p.m.
3:26:37 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS - referring to a handout starting with the words,
"From SB 110" - made a motion to amend Amendment 3 such that the
term "biological evidence" would be defined as meaning: "(A)
the contents of a sexual assault forensic examination kit; (B)
semen, blood, hair, saliva, skin tissue, fingernail scrapings,
bone, bodily fluids, or other identifiable human bodily
material, collected as part of a criminal investigation".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected and then removed her objection to
the amendment to Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He asked what the term "sexual assault forensic examination kit"
means.
MS. McLEAN explained that Title 18 contains statutes referring
to sexual assault forensic examination kits, a term of art
coined by the Department of Public Safety (DPS); such kits
include all of the materials used to gather DNA, hair, and fiber
evidence from sexual assault victims and suspects. In response
to questions, she noted that [for some types of evidence], the
evidence resides on the equipment used to collect it, such as
swabs, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested that the term "biological
evidence" should instead be defined as "including" the
aforementioned items, rather than as "meaning" the
aforementioned items.
MS. McLEAN argued that such a change would make the definition
too broad; the definition should instead remain narrow to
reflect only "what it is that we are really looking for." In
response to questions, she clarified that once evidence is
collected via the equipment in a sexual assault forensic
examination kit, that evidence then becomes part of the sexual
assault forensic examination kit, and that the semicolon between
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of the amendment to Amendment 3 is
intended to mean and/or.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, said he
would not object to the amendment to Amendment 3 as long as that
meaning was clear.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that the objection had been removed, and
announced that the amendment to Amendment 3 was adopted.
3:31:17 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Gatto,
Lynn, and Ramras voted in favor of Amendment 3, as amended.
Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 4-
2.
[HB 9, Version E as amended, was held over.]
3:32:42 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.