JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MERGERS February 24, 2000 1:10 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Rick Halford, Chairman Senator Drue Pearce Representative Brian Porter Representative Jim Whitaker MEMBERS ABSENT Senator John Ellis Representative Joe Green, Vice-Chairman Representative Beth Kerttula COMMITTEE CALENDAR Discussion of BP Amoco/ARCO merger by: Mr. William MacLeod Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott 3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. Mr. Jack Griffin, Assistant Attorney General Oil, gas, and Mining Section Department of Law 1031 W 4th, Ste 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Carl Katz Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott 3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. PREVIOUS ACTION See the Joint Special Committee on Mergers minutes dated 6/11/99, 7/28/99, 9/24/99, 9/25/99, 11/18/99, 11/19/99, 1/12/00, 1/18/00, 1/19/00, 1/25/00, and 2/8/00. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-11, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Joint Special Committee on Mergers meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. and said they were scheduled for an update from the Administration and the committee's consultants on what is happening with the merger. MR. BILL MACLEOD, Committee Consultant, said the memo laying out the timetable gives them all the important dates that are likely to to be coming up for a while. There is going to be a tremendous flurry of activity getting ready for a hearing like this. It is almost unprecedented for this amount of preparation to occur in this amount of time. He asked if there were any questions. SPEAKER PORTER asked if they should presume there aren't side negotiations going on that might conclude the matter. He asked if that was a possibility. MR. MACLEOD answered that it's always hard to make predictions like that, but he thought that all the energy being expended right now was going toward the hearing. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was any point that negotiations might resume before the hearing. MR. MACLEOD said that negotiations can happen at a number of points. The obvious times when they could occur are after a little bit of evidence has been taken and especially a day or two before the hearing. The FTC has laid out a clear position as to what they want. It seems that unless there's going to be some movement by BP, it's hard to imagine there's going to be a lot of room for settling. Number 325 CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked about the February 24 teleconference as a key date. Did he know anything about what happened there. MR. MACLEOD said they didn't know anything yet; it could still be going on now. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if he had a list of who is on BP's witness list. MR. MACLEOD answered that he didn't have it, but could get one quickly. MR. JACK GRIFFIN, Assistant Attorney General, said the State's motion to intervene was granted Tuesday giving the State status as a party in the proceedings. They will be entitled to call witnesses and cross examine adverse witnesses. Attorney General Bruce Botelho will be participating in that trial as will our outside lawyers, Boise Schiller and David Foerster, in particular; and Morrison and Foerster are Bob Loeffler and Brad Lui. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the State had a separate witness list. MR. GRIFFIN answered yes that they have a tentative witness list on which they have identified Rick Warren Boulton, Jeff Leitzinger, Commissioner of Revenue Wilson Condon, and Ken Boyd, Director of the Oil and Gas Division. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how our presentation as a party worked with BP's presentation. Are they presenting the merger as modified by the Charter as their bottom line, because the State opposed the original merger. How does it work. MR. GRIFFIN answered that they would be talking with BP and ARCO about how to co-ordinate the witnesses. They don't want to present witnesses who are going to duplicate things. He said that both BP and ARCO and the State of Alaska believe that the court, considering the public interest, has to consider the merger as modified by the Charter, not as the FTC would have it as the merger unmodified by the agreement that the companies have with the State. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that BP/ARCO's presentation is that the Charter is the real proposal that's before the FTC. MR. GRIFFIN said that is correct - the merger as modified by the Charter. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if the assumption was that there are no outstanding issues regarding the merger (State v. BP/AMOCO). MR. GRIFFIN answered that he wasn't sure he was responding to his question, but the case as going to be presented will talk about the public interest as the public interest is reflected in the merger as modified by the Charter. He didn't see other hypothetical constructions of the transaction playing a significant role. Maybe BP or ARCO have plans along those lines, but he didn't know about them. Number 700 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he wasn't hypothesizing; he was asking a question and that question is: have the State and BP/AMOCO agreed to all of the terms and intricacies inherent to the Charter agreement. MR. GRIFFIN answered that the Charter agreement is binding on both the State and BP/ARCO. The terms are as they are reflected in the Charter; there are no side deals. There may be some intricacies associated with how the Charter is ultimately implemented that will have to be worked out, but right now there were no additional agreements with BP or ARCO along those lines. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if the disposition of acreage and the formalization inherent to that was such an intricacy. MR. GRIFFIN replied that the way the Charter is set up, before any deal can go through or be complete, BP has to come to us and say here's the package we've put together. We believe this has satisfied all the terms of the Charter and then we have to essentially approve that. That hasn't happened. One of the things that will have to be a part of that package is a structure that shows the requisite amount of acreage: in NPRA within one of the particular play fairways goes to either the new operator at Alpine or Kuparuk, that the right amount of acreage goes to both the new operators at Alpine and Kuparek, etc. That process is not complete. BP has not come to them with a proposed purchaser or set of purchasers reflecting their obligations under the Charter. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said the acreage he is concerned with includes not only the acreage adherent to the Kuparuk River Unit and the Alpine, but rather the reformulization of the entire acreage picture on the North Slope with regard to the 500,000 acre limit. He is having a difficult time with the notion that might be characterized as something akin to an intricacy. His concern is that the State is arguing on behalf of an agreement that is probably far from finalized. He guessed there would be considerable disagreement as to the disposition of that acreage and the formulization adherent to it. He asked if that was not troublesome to Mr. Griffin - with regard to a weakened position the State may have as a result of arguing for an agreement that essentially is agreed to before it's finalized. He said it was as clear as mud at this point. He wanted Mr. Griffin to clarify that for him. MR. GRIFFIN responded that he would try. The structure of the Charter right now doesn't concern him in the way he suggested. He didn't foresee a lot of difficulty associated with implementing the Charter's terms. There are two aspects to the exploration acreage portion of the Charter. One is the specific structure of the divestiture required to create viable new competitors on the North Slope - both as new operators of existing production and with respect to new exploration operators. The other aspect is that the merged entity is going to have to get down to the statutory limit. The divestitures required to create viable competitors are spelled out fairly specifically in the Charter. They haven't identified each lease that must go to the Alpine or Kuparuk operator, but they have identified very specific play fairways where the divestitures have to occur and have set acreage minimums that must go to both the Alpine operator and the Kuparuk operator or the State exploration acreage and acreage minimum in one of the play fairways in the NPRA that must go either the Alpine or the Kuparuk operator. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said the statutory requirement on exploration acreage is 500,000 off shore and 500,000 on shore. (MR. GRIFFIN nodded agreement.) He asked if the formulation adherent to that was complete. MR. GRIFFIN answered if he was asking if they had identified which particular leases must be divested or relinquished in order to get to the 500,000 acre limit, apart from the specific divestitures required to create competitors, the answer is no. They have not required BP or ARCO to divest or relinquish particular acreage solely for the purpose of getting to the 500,000 acre limit. They have a fair amount of flexibility there in order to reach the limit - to the extent that they don't get there when they put their packages together with the new purchaser or purchaser. The packages that were created have minimum acreage amounts that need to go to the new operator or operators. BP and ARCO can reach the statutory limit in their deals with those new operators simply by adding acres on to the minimums that were established in the Charter. If they don't satisfy the statutory requirement in their deal with the new purchaser(s), they have some flexibility in terms of either selling acreage to other companies or in simply relinquishing the excess acreage back to the State. Number 1219 SPEAKER PORTER said he thought Washington, Oregon, and California had been granted similar status to our State. He asked if he had a feel for what the relationship between Alaska and those three states would be. Do we agree on anything? Are we totally opposed? MR. GRIFFIN answered that the relationship is fairly described as the western states lining up behind the FTC's position and we fundamentally disagree with the FTC's position - particularly with respect to the idea that BP somehow exercises market power in a way that would allow it to raise ANS prices above competitive levels to the detriment of a handful of refiners in Washington and California. They just don't think that's the case. Even if it were the case that BP could somehow obtain more for ANS than it currently does from those refiners (a proposition they don't agree with), they would disagree that the FTC should be in the business of saying the upstream is making too much money. The refiners in Washington and California should make more. They do not think that is what the anti-trust laws are really designed to do. SPEAKER PORTER asked if that issue was the predominant discussion or was there more as it relates to the relationship with the other states. MR. GRIFFIN answered that he thought that was the principal issue with the other states. They did allege some concerns for competition in Alaska, but that is, in his view, not really their concern. They are concerned about their refiners. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if he was saying the record shows no price deferential to different refineries based on their capacity to process ANS or non-ANS crude. MR. GRIFFIN answered that the reason he is hesitating is because he didn't want to go into....(confidential issues). He knows that the FTC has alleged that BP engages in price discrimination. That has been made public in the version of the preliminary injunction motion that the FTC has made available generally. They fundamentally disagree with the characterization that someone who may charge differently situated companies different amounts for a particular commodity is necessarily engaging in price discrimination. Just as if the Cal Worthington Ford dealer in Anchorage charges two different customers a different price for a particular car. That does not mean that Cal Worthington is engaging in price discrimination. They are both products of individual negotiations. He thought it is fair to turn the whole question around and ask the FTC why aren't they investigating the refiners and the market power they must possess in order to force BP to sell them oil at a price that's less than foreign crude. SENATOR PEARCE inserted that they aren't trying to merge. MR. GRIFFIN responded that he thought that was exactly the answer. SENATOR PEARCE asked if this was a fair characterization of when discoveries are made and the companies move forward to development. There is a unitization agreement between the owner companies of the leases. That agreement is then brought to the AOGCC for approval; they look at it, but if the companies have come up with the agreement without squabbling, they will probably approve the agreement. MR. GRIFFIN answered that he personally didn't have any involvement with the AOGCC and its role in approving unit agreements. The existing unit agreements were approved by the Department of Natural Resources. Typically, the AOGCC would get involved if you had royalty owners other than the state who couldn't agree on how to allocate the produced substances from the various leases within an area or within a proposed unit. SENATOR PEARCE asked if he believed that the agreements presently in place on the North Slope have been approved only by DNR, not by the AOGCC. MR. GRIFFIN responded if the AOGCC has approved those units, he is not aware of it. He is not aware of a statutory role for them in approving units that have been approved by the DNR involving state leases and state resources. SENATOR PEARCE asked if the unitization agreements specific to Kuparuk or Prudhoe Bay hold any preferential rights. MR. GRIFFIN answered that the unit agreements do not contain preferential rights. They could be found in either the operating agreement between the companies, which the State would not be a party to or other agreements between the companies. He was not aware of the State recognizing preferential rights in the unit agreements themselves. They are typically embodied in agreements to which the State is not a party to. SENATOR PEARCE referenced Commissioner Shively's letter saying the State would not allow preferential rights if it's not in unitization agreements and is an operating agreement. He has written a letter to owners who are parties to these agreements who thought they had preferential rights of refusal for additional ownership in these fields. MR. GRIFFIN replied that he is familiar with the letter she is referring to, although he had a slightly different interpretation of it. He believed Commissioner Shively said in his role of deciding whether to approve any lease transfer that is proposed by a current lessee on a state lease, he is going to consider the goals and objectives embodied in the Charter in his best interest analysis (which he is required to do by statute). Mr. Griffin thought it was fair to say that Commissioner Shively suggested fairly strongly that these companies with preferential rights would have a fairly high burden to show that they could dismantle what the State had tried to accomplish in the Charter through the exercise of their preferential rights; and have the Commissioner of Natural Resources conclude that the transfer was nevertheless in the State's best interests. SENATOR PEARCE said so we've got a company that comes up here, leases land, spends lots of money to do exactly what the State is purporting we're going to get more of if this merger goes through, is lucky enough to be part of a discovery, gets to a development phase; and they have signed an operating agreement with the other companies in which (because they are one of the owners who put all that money up front) there are preferential rights that say: "By the way, if you, Company A, decide to sell, you are part of this. We get a preferential right of first refusal to buy the rest of the leases that we're involved in." Is the Attorney General saying that they would have a high burden before he would approve those preferential rights. Why would anyone want to do business in Alaska under those circumstances. Number 1716 MR. GRIFFIN answered that Commissioner Shively wrote the letter. SENATOR PEARCE interrupted saying that she doubted he wrote it without an attorney. MR. GRIFFIN said he would analogize it to the situation where she is a landlord and she leased an apartment to someone she trusted and knew to have the financial ability to pay the rent. Then that person entered into an agreement with another party saying if I ever leave here, I will sign my lease to you. You, as the landlord, have the right to look at that transfer and judge whether that is reasonable or not. If that other person, for whatever reason, is not financially capable or is not someone who would normally qualify for renting your apartment, the law allows you to raise those objections. The State is in a somewhat comparable situation here, but the stakes are a lot higher. In the typical situation where no merger is involved, where the State's anti-trust enforcement authority isn't hanging in the balance, a company that currently owns a lease within an established unit that has right of first refusal on lease interests that are being sold by anther participant in the unit is not going to have any problem getting the State to find that the transfer is in the State's best interest. But Commissioner Shively is under a statutory obligation to consider a whole range of factors in deciding where the State's best interests lie, and in this particular case, it just so happens that we have a proposal for two companies to merge and the State has taken anti-trust enforcement action. The efficacy of that action may be affected by a company that seeks to exercise a preference right that is inconsistent with the State's enforcement action. SENATOR PEARCE asked if he was saying the other owners are like parties the State would not want to have as the second lease owner. MR. GRIFFIN answered that he wouldn't characterize any of the existing participants in any of the units as unwelcome tenants. Quite the contrary, the Charter was set up in a way to specifically allow each of the existing participants in each of the units to qualify for the packages that the Charter described. We are only talking about the situation in which an existing working interest owner in a unit would seek to exercise a preference right in a way that would make BP and ARCO's satisfaction of the Charter impossible. SENATOR PEARCE said we say we want new companies to come in and we want exploration and competition; then we turn around and say by letter that we approve you can do all the agreements with all the other lease owners you want to and any time the State suddenly decides it wants to align itself with one of the other companies, it can do so and throw your operating agreement out the window and tell you you don't have the preferential rights that you had in your agreement. She thought that would somehow quell the urge for companies to come here and do business. MR. GRIFFIN said he didn't think so. Every company who comes to do business in the State knows that they are going to be able to acquire interests through the exercise of preferential rights in the normal course. We are talking about the ability of the State to review that and assure itself that the transfer in that particular instance is going to satisfy the best interest test that has been established by statute. Commissioner Shively, or any other commissioner of Natural Resources, cannot arbitrarily align himself with a particular company in order to frustrate the legitimate contractual rights of other working interest owners. It's only if the Commissioner legitimately concludes and reasonably concludes that the best interests of the State, for whatever reason, under the circumstances at hand, do not support the transfer. That is something the companies can then take to the courts, if they do think the decision was made unreasonably or arbitrarily for reasons that do not genuinely affect the best interests of the State. He highly doubted that any court looking at the merger and the State's enforcement action would say that is not a factor that Commissioner Shively could consider when consider the best interests of the State in approving a lease transfer. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the preference right was an interest in land. MR. GRIFFIN said he would characterize the preference right as an interest in land. Number 1983 CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the relinquishment, denial, or change in that preference right, based on some condition created after the preference right, have to be considered by the courts to be a taking of some kind. You might be able to enforce it, but you might have to pay for it at some point if someone sues. The State's goal of meeting the competitive package that it wants to meet may be a superior goal, but the person who has lost the interest in land through a government taking could have some recourse against the State for the value of it. MR. GRIFFIN explained that it wouldn't be a taking, because every company that enters into a lease with the State knows that it cannot transfer its interest in that lease to someone else without the State's approval. CHAIRMAN HALFORD added on the conditions that were there at the time. Does adding a new condition after the fact change the rules, he asked. MR. GRIFFIN answered that the rules have not changed, only the circumstances at issue in this particular case have changed. The rule has always been that you are not going to be allowed to assign an interest in a State lease, if it's not in the State's best interest. The merger they are currently reviewing is obviously not the typical event, but that doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate factor for the State to consider in weighing the best interests of the State when evaluating a request to transfer an interest in a state lease. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he disagreed. SENATOR PEARCE said she did, too. The Charter still talks about two unnamed companies to be the purchasers and asked why he believed you can say without any question that two unnamed companies are going to take away all the concerns we had under the original merger and we are going to have competition on the North Slope. MR. GRIFFIN answered that he couldn't give her the sort of assurance she is asking for unless he could predict the future. He can't say if the merger were stopped that ARCO would continue to look like ARCO. SENATOR PEARCE said that was not her question. MR. GRIFFIN said he interpreted the question as: How can he say there is no question, whatsoever, that the Charter will satisfy all of our concerns. The Charter has been designed specifically to create competition on the North Slope and capture the efficiencies targeted by the merger, principally at Prudhoe Bay. They believe that combination is the combination that will, in the long run, produce the greatest level of production and the greatest total revenues for the State. This is a judgement call on the Administration's part. Ten or 15 years from now, people will be able to say whether they were right or not. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if it's the AG's position that the merger precharter was anti-competitive. MR. GRIFFIN answered yes with respect to North Slope bidding and leasing. Not with respect to downstream markets. SENATOR PEARCE asked if Company A or Company B or if Company A plus B fixed all that. MR. GRIFFIN answered that the universe of companies that would qualify under the Charter is relatively limited. One can find a list of companies on various web sites or in the Oil and Gas Journal by size of assets and check off who the qualified companies are. They looked at who all the companies were and asked themselves the question: Is there any one of these companies that couldn't compete here in Alaska if they had the right to operate, the exploration acreage, the barrels, the infrastructure, and if they had the pipeline transportation. The answer they came to was that any one of those companies that would qualify under the terms set by the Charter could be a competitor and should be a competitor in the State with all of the assets included in the packages as defined by the Charter. There wasn't a company they could cross off the list because they just wouldn't do. Their view was that any company that would be willing to commit the resources necessary to acquire the assets that had to be divested would have to be interested in Alaska. You wouldn't make that corporate decision as a company unless you had decided as a corporation to commit yourself to the State. That is what the Charter does. None of us can predict what's going to go on in the minds of individual managers at any particular level in any particular company at some indefinite point in the future. What you can do is try and put together the pieces that under any reasonable scenario would reflect a commitment to the State to future exploration, development, and future production. And that's what the Charter attempts to do. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that now he is a party to the legal case with regard to the injunction. If the hope in the process is that it pressures negotiation to a positive solution for everybody, he asked where Mr. Griffin's part was in that process. If BP and ARCO sit down and make an agreement with the FTC, will the State be a party to the negotiation as well as the court battle. Does he have a commitment that they will be a party to that negotiation or will he find out after the fact that a deal has been made between the companies and the FTC. The Administration would have to evaluate whether they are in favor of it or not when the momentum is going in the other direction. MR. GRIFFIN answered that he didn't know that there was going to be additional negotiation. He said if the injunction is granted, the deal is dead. It's over at that point even though the FTC has talked about its internal process. As a practical matter it could take years; in reality companies cannot let their shareholders hang out that long... TAPE 00-11, SIDE B Number 2350 over proposed merger plans while the FTC goes about its business. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if in his opinion we would have an answer by the first of April on the current schedule. MR. GRIFFIN replied that the Court should be given a little more time than that to issue her decision. The parties have expressed the hope the Court could rule on the motion by mid-April, although she hasn't committed to that. On the negotiation matter, the fact that the State is in as a party will mean that the State is at the table if the parties go back to the table to try and work something out. He anticipates playing an active role in something like that to ensure that any deal that might be cut would protect Alaska's interests. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he hoped the parties would guarantee that to the Governor. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he didn't want to belabor this, but stated that a key component to competition is the disposition of exploration acreage. This also relates to the state's intervention efforts and the effect it may have on the state's ability to negotiate post-merger. He has difficulty understanding how such an agreement can be argued for so strongly when such a substantial portion of that agreement (the disposition of acreage as required and the attendant statute regarding lease acreage limits). How can we argue so strongly in favor of an agreement which in this specific and substantial regard is incomplete. You don't know to whom you're selling or what the formulization will be for the limitations of acreage. That is a huge component to future competitiveness on the Slope. MR. GRIFFIN asked if he was referring to the acreage that might have to be divested beyond the specific acreage that was identified in the play fairways that had to go to either the exploration operators or the operators at Alpine and Kuparuk. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said there were two parts to control exploration acreage; first the acreage that is being divested and the other that which is adherent to the 500,000 acre limitation and the reformulation of that that will be required as a result of the merger. It is difficult to separate one from the other when in the end they all relate to who has what acreage on the Slope post- merger. How can you argue in favor of an agreement that has not answered that question. MR. GRIFFIN asked Representative Whitaker to refresh his memory on how many acres above the amount that is going to go to the new operators would be required to be divested in order to reach the 500,000 acre limit. He recollected that it's relatively small. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought it was about 380,000 total. That's net acreage that can be pretty substantially manipulated by sale to fractional interests. MR. GRIFFIN responded that the Charter on this particular point requires a divestiture of 660,000 total acres: 240,000 acres or so are going to be in NPRA; 400,000 acres are going to be state acreage. On the state acreage, they have identified at least 250,000 acres has to go to the new operators. So there may be some portion that won't have to go to either the new operator at Alpine or Kuparuk. To answer his question, the play fairways and the acreage limitations that were identified in the Charter were the fairways and acreage limitations they felt were necessary to assure whoever acquired those packages would have a substantial commitment to the State. That's what satisfied the anti-trust concern. The acreage beyond that, which was specifically identified, that didn't have to go to either of those operators to satisfy the State's anti-trust concerns shouldn't affect the competitive success of the Charter regardless of where they go. We don't need to know who the excess acreage goes to in order to characterize the Charter as a success. Number 2194 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said Chairman Halford touched on the key point which is the reformulation of the percentage of ownership with regard to acreage and the control that's adherent to that is tantamount to the very key component of the question at hand - the anti-trust question. By controlling substantially more acreage in the future as a result of the merger, is there not a substantial lessening of competition. MR. GRIFFIN replied no. Once the acreage has been leased, you've gotten past the point of worrying about whether there's going to be competition at the bidding or leasing stage. That's already occurred. The next important thing is the cost. Ideally, the more acreage you have in the low cost producer, the more likely you are to have that acreage developed. We have no interest in competition per se within acreage that has already been leased. The State has an interest in seeing the acreage developed and it is most likely to be developed by the company that can do it at the least cost. The Charter tries to reconcile the benefits the State gets from competition at the bidding and leasing stage and the benefits the State sees from having a low-cost, competitive developer/producer/transporter/marketer of ANS. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said that is the essence of their disagreement. You are willing to entrust the future of the State of Alaska's oil resource to the low-cost producer regardless of the competitiveness within the oil patch. That low-cost producer, then, must be entrusted to take the resource to market simply because they are the low-cost producer-irregardless of other internal economics associated with that low-cost producer. He disagrees fundamentally that that is in the State's best interest. He chooses to trust the free enterprise system and he thinks that we have an opportunity and that we will be successful to that end. Number 1957 CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how much has the State spent so far on the executive side. MR. GRIFFIN answered the total for the outside consultants through February 10 is slightly in excess of $1.5 million. There are still some outstanding bills for work done, but those are the bills they have received to date. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked with regard to the reimbursement that's in the Charter, which says reimbursement to the State of Alaska, if that included the legislative branch. MR. GRIFFIN said he understood that it doesn't. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said there were no further questions. MR. CARL CATZ, Washington D.C. consultant, said the teleconference with the judge today was postponed until 4:00 pacific time tomorrow. Additionally, the FTC is not making the witness list available to the public. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the FTC's witness list had been circulated. MR. KATZ explained that he was referring to the defense witness list. CHAIRMAN HALFORD thanked him and adjourned the meeting at 2:20 p.m.