MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE February 6, 1996 9:05 A.M. TAPES SFC-96, #19, Sides 1 & 2 SFC-95, #20, Side 1 CALL TO ORDER Senator Rick Halford, Co-chair, convened the meeting at approximately 9:05 A.M. PRESENT In addition to Co-chairman Halford, co-chairman Frank and Senators Sharp, Donley, Rieger and Zharoff were present when the meeting was convened. Senator Phillips was the last arriving senator Also Attending: Representative Con Bunde; Patty Swenson, Administrative Assistant to Rep. Bunde; Anne Carpeneti, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Carol Carrol, Director, Administrative & Support Services, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs; Senator Leman; Annette Kreitzer, aide to Senate Resources Committee; Senator Lyda Green; Art Snowden, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System; Mike Greany, Director, Legislative Finance Division; fiscal analysts; and aides to committee members. Teleconference: Barbara Brink, Deputy Public Defender, Anchorage; Brant McGee, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage. SUMMARY INFORMATION SENATE BILL NO. 69 "An Act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous materials, and hazardous waste." Testimony was given in support of CSSB 69(RES) by Senator Leman and Annette Kreitzer. CSSB 69(RES) was REPORTED OUT of committee with zero fiscal notes. HOUSE BILL NO. 38 "An Act relating to criminal sentencing; relating to the availability for good time credit for offenders convicted of certain first degree murders; relating to mandatory life imprisonment, parole, good time credit, pardon, commutation of sentence, modification or reduction of sentence, reprieve, furlough, and service of sentence at a correctional restitution center for offenders with at least three serious felony convictions; and amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35." Testimony was given in support of HB 38 by Representative Con Bunde; Anne Carpeneti, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Jerry Luckhaupt, Attorney, Legislative Affairs Agency; and Jerry Shriner, Department of Corrections. Teleconference testimony was given by Barbara Brink, Deputy Public Defender, Anchorage and Brent McGee, Director of the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage. Amendment #1 was MOVED by Senator Donley and ADOPTED. The bill was held until next week to take up concerns voiced by Senator Donley. SENATE BILL NO. 178 "An Act relating to small employer health insurance." No testimony was heard by the committee and it was rescheduled for Friday, 9 February 1996 at 9:00 A.M. SENATE BILL NO. 69 "An Act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous materials, and hazardous waste." Senator Leman was invited to join the committee and briefly stated that he believed the fiscal notes should be zero. The DEC put in a fiscal note for $5,000 for mailing expenses but since this bill creates a single form to replace what in the Anchorage municipality is four forms and since the mailing goes out anyway there should be no additional expense. It should be a zero fiscal note. In summary the bill in Anchorage has four different requirements: the municipal placarding requirement, the State fire marshall placarding requirement, the community right-to-know requirement and the OSHA requirement (MSDS sheets). In Anchorage, the municipal placarding requirements will still but we will remove the statewide placarding requirements under the State fire marshall. This is something the State fire marshall supports. There are some threshold limits that are more stringent than Federal law and this is a technical update making all reporting requirements consistent with Federal law. Senator Donley asked that the current placarding program be explained in regard to the State fire marshall. Senator Leman noted that the State fire marshall placarding program had been largely ineffective. It is a function of the law that just has not been used. The fire marshall supports this change and does not oppose the bill. Discussion has also been held with the fire departments. This bill will allow for municipalities to keep the placarding program if they wish. It is hoped that the single form now proposed will become an electronic placarding system. Senator Donley felt that it was important for firemen going into a building to know what sort of hazardous materials are stored there so that they can wear proper protective gear. Senator Leman concurred. Senator Rieger asked about the existing law with regards to municipalities establishing and imposing penalties and fees, what a first class and second class city can do, what a municipality can do and would this give power to any municipality that they would not have otherwise had under their home rule charter or adopted when the city was first incorporated? Senator Leman stated that when he served on the local emergency planning committee in Anchorage that Anchorage had to go through the process of establishing fees so the LEPC came up with recommendations, worked with the fire department and then it went through a public process as allowed by Title 29. Annette Kreitzer explained that Title 29 placarding program is the current law. The only change in the section deletes the placarding requirements under the State fire marshall placarding program. No new authorization is being granted to municipalities. Senator Zharoff referred to the Alaska State Emergency Response Commission and if it exists. Senator Leman replied that Senate Bill 33 of last year restructured the commission. It consists of commissioners from nine departments and seven public members and it functions to implement the Federal law regarding the reporting of hazardous substances. Senator Zharoff also asked if under section 4 of CSSB 69(RES) the specific terminology brings up to date all of the various poisons, explosives, etc. Senator Leman explained that in 1993 Congress passed a law recognizing the United Nations Identification System to make sure all the listings of hazardous substances are consistent using international symbols to make sure everyone knows what substances are being stored. Senator Zharoff referred to the deletion of 500 lbs. hazardous material being handled in one day to 10,000 lbs. and would like to know what effect this will have. Senator Leman explained that previously State law had been more stringent than the Federal law; now the law was consistent. Senator Zharoff also inquired about the provision for compressed gases. Senator Leman advised that the stated requirement goes beyond Federal law which doesn't require compressed gases be reported. Municipalities can establish their own standards that are more stringent than those required under Federal law. Senator Zharoff expressed concern over a fireman going into a building with compressed gas stored without his knowing. Senator Leman advised that the effect of the bill is to delete the placarding requirement but the information on stored chemicals would exist in a data bank that would be available to all municipal fire departments when they are responding to a fire. Senator Sharp MOVED for passage of CSSB 69(RES) from committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. No objections being heard CSSB 69 (RES) was REPORTED OUT with zero fiscal notes from Department of Public Safety, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Senate Finance Committee fiscal note for Department of Environmental Conservation. Co-chairman Halford introduced HB 38. HOUSE BILL NO. 38 "An Act relating to criminal sentencing; relating to the availability for good time credit for offenders convicted of certain first degree murders; relating to mandatory life imprisonment, parole, good time credit, pardon, commutation of sentence, modification or reduction of sentence, reprieve, furlough, and service of sentence at a correctional restitution center for offenders with at least three serious felony convictions; and amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35." Representative Con Bunde was invited to join the committee and offered this testimony on what is popularly referred to as the "three strikes bill". An accurate definition is the "habitual offender bill". For the record he paraphrased a bit of the sponsors' statement. HB 38 provides a definite term of imprisonment from forty to ninety-nine years for a specific group of offenders who have two separate prior class A or unclassified felonies, people that are referred to as criminal predators. Under proposed legislation discretionary parole and good time sentence reductions would not be available to offenders who are sentenced to the definite term. Those sentenced from forty to ninety-nine years have the right to ask the Court for a reduction after they have served greater than one-half of the term or thirty years. There is obviously a cost to keeping a person incarcerated for an extended period of time however this legislation is crafted to keep that cost at a minimum. Strong punishment can shape behaviour and deter crime. The committee is strongly encouraged to consider the cost of criminal predators remaining at large. The latest studies show that the average felon commits 200 felonies per year. It is time to close the revolving door on repeat offenders and this proposed legislation will make Alaska a safer place. Senator Donley referred to the provision for modification or sentence reduction after one-half of the definite term is served and wanted to know if this included good time or not. Representative Bunde indicated that this is without good time. Under the definite term a person must serve one half of their sentence. Senator Donley referred to the mandatory ninety-nine years for certain types of murder noting with good time it could be reduced as much as one-third. Discussion followed regarding terminology of "good time" and "definite term". Patty Swenson, Administrative Assistant to Representative Bunde stated that the bill was drafted to be consistent in defining a definite term and not one that allowed a sliding scale. Senator Donley said he would like to hear from the drafters of this bill as to terminology used as there is a fear even though there is the thirty-year back-up which creates a lot of safety the "definite term" would not necessarily mean without consideration of good time the way the Courts' interpret these things. Representative Bunde stated that too often a sentence of ninety-nine years has not meant ninety-nine years. Co- chairman Halford requests Senator Donley get an answer to this question. Senator Sharp referred to fiscal notes, the revolving door not occurring as often and therefore causing a savings for not processing people through the Court system and that there is no off-set for handling repeaters. Representative Bunde pointed out the cost of leaving repeat offenders out on the street. It was not taken into consideration the average third time loser serves thirteen-and-a-half years in jail. There would be no fiscal impact by this bill for at least thirteen-and-a-half years as far as the Department of Corrections is concerned. The Public Defender pointed out in their fiscal note that they would have to have a more vigorous defense if these would go to trial. It is difficult to calculate what it is going to cost the public but criminal research accepts the available statistics that each felon habitual criminal commits two hundred felonies a year. Co-chairman Halford referred to the suspended imposition of sentence and that it would be the bargain made anytime it was available. An SIS is where a deal is made with the prosecution to plead guilty to an offense, it is not recorded, it is sealed and it remains on the desk for two years and if you don't do anything wrong it's gone and it is not a prior offense. Representative Bunde explained that this bill would only impact those who commit class A or unclassified felonies; rape, murder or armed assault. An SIS would not be used unless it is maybe manslaughter, assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, arson in the first degree, escape. Senator Donley inquired if the bill would trigger only if the first offense were one of the aforelisted. Representative Bunde indicated that was correct. Prosecutors would also have to choose to pursue this definitive sentence. If there is circumstantial evidence or the case is weak they are not going to go to trial at this big expense. Once they choose to do that it is the first strike. The next two strikes must also be a serious offense. They must be separate convictions and not three charges in one trial. Senator Phillips inquired if the California law was initiated by initiative. Patty Swenson advised California and Washington were by initiative and there may be other states. Alaska used to have habitual criminal law which was a broader-scoped three strikes. Senator Zharoff asked how the law was working in the states which have invoked it. Representative Bunde indicated that it has saved California a lot of money and the general public seemed to feel more comfortable and secure with the idea that the revolving door is being closed on these criminals. Senator Phillips asked if the laws in California and Washington have been challenged in court or not and what is the status. Representative Bunde advised that there are ongoing court challenges and these laws have not been struck down. Patty Swenson points out that there is a pending court challenge in Washington. Co-chairman Halford indicated that Mr. Jerry Luckhaupt, one of the drafters of the bill was present and asked Senator Donley to proceed. Senator Donley asked about the relationship of the mandatory ninety-nine years sentence provisions for certain types of murders with this bill and asked if this would modify the current ninety-nine year provision to say that good time is not available within that ninety-nine year sentence. Jerry Luckhaupt indicated that certain murders (murders of a police officer, torture murders and a few other cases) those people currently earn good time but under this bill it would be taken away. Discussion regarding the terminology of "definite term" and good time followed. Jerry Luckhaupt indicated that use of the term "definite term" is not tied to whether or not you earn good time rather it is tied to the fact that under the new section seven of the bill, subsection L, the court is required to impose a definite term that is somewhere between forty and ninety-nine years. It is not going to be a presumptive term. The Court must impose within that range and it will be a definite term. For first degree murder a mandatory ninety-nine year sentence is imposed and the Court has no discretion. In this case the Court has the discretion to fix the definite term within that range provided in the statute. Presumptive sentencing is used in Alaska. Minimum sentencing has been set for certain misdemeanor assaults. Senator Donley informed the co- chairman that this is the reason he wants this pursued because this is the first time this terminology will be used. It is important when new terminology is adopted that it be very clearly defined or else the Court's will do the defining and it may not be the same thing the Legislature wants. Senator Donley asked if there are any advantages in a definite term as compared to ninety-nine years and even though it is a definite term there is still a judicial discretion between forty and ninety-nine years of what that definite term will be. Jerry Luckhaupt indicated that the sponsor decided to go with a definite term within that particular range so that the Court could set a term it felt appropriate but within a range as set by the Legislature based upon the seriousness of the crimes the person had committed over a period of time. Senator Zharoff questioned what effect or impact this will have on the present prison population. Representative Bunde indicated there will be no additional impact for thirteen and a half years because anyone currently sentenced under the provisions that were covered in this bill would be sentenced to the average term of thirteen-and-a-half years. Anne Carpeneti was invited to join the committee and testified on behalf of the Criminal Division, Department of Law. It is indicated that the Department of Law supports HB 38 in it's present form, however, it will cost money in terms of jury trials, prosecutorial time and defense time. Senator Phillips inquired if this bill was constitutional. Mrs. Carpeneti indicated that she believes that it is. Senator Zharoff asked about the two other states that have this similar law and if there are any more. Mrs. Carpeneti indicated that there are many states that have an habitual criminal law that vary in terms of their specifics. Senator Zharoff voiced two concerns: with this kind of legislation on the books will there be more focus on the criminal charges rather than on civil charges; what will the effects be on the public. Mrs. Carpeneti advised that in terms of civil matters, examples would be lawsuits filed by one person against another and they would, according to California experience, take longer to resolve because of the effect of the impact on the court system with the three strikes provision. This is why our position is that these things take money and the cost of administering this legislation cannot be ignored. Discussion of fishing violations and forfeitures followed between Senator Zharoff and Mrs. Carpeneti. Senator Rieger asked if passage of this bill would crowd out the prosecution of lower class criminal matters. Will the prosecution figure that they will trade off one of these trials against a multiple of lower trials? Mrs. Carpeneti advised in every situation where there are more cases than you can prosecute or take to trial you have to prioritize. Some smaller cases would not get as much attention as you think they deserve. There is no list to go through and decide what to prosecute. At the time of arraignment in Superior Court an intent to pursue the definite term of forty to ninety-nine years has to be filed by the prosecutor. That will give the defendant notice whether or not the State is going to pursue that option and that makes a difference in terms of decisions about trial and pleas. Senator Rieger asked the difference between "similar" and "substantially identical". Mrs. Carpeneti stated that using "similar" makes it easier for the prosecution to show that it is similar enough to count but the elements may not be exactly the same. She stated the most serious felonies are defined in this bill for Alaska offenses and we can't go looking around for other felonies in our state that might have similar elements. Senator Halford asked if this applies to previous statutes. Mrs. Carpeneti indicated that perhaps it should read "a former offense" to cover a conviction under a former statutory reference that has been repealed or reenacted or replaced with another provision for the same crime. Co- chairman Halford asked for a response from the drafter. Jerry Luckhaupt stated that it is a corrected drafting error from approximately eight years ago when the legislature changed "substantially identical" to "similar". The court has been applying it as similar through the years. But going up above on same page five referring to similar convictions in this jurisdiction Mrs. Carpeneti was correct when she indicated how we have dealt with former convictions. A most serious felony in Alaska is defined in this bill and we have identified the crimes. Someday municipalities would be allowed to enact felony offenses and prosecute such and a conviction by a municipality would be a conviction in this jurisdiction and if it met those elements of the crime defined by statute then it would qualify also. Senator Rieger felt there should be some sort of reference to the degree of the seriousness of the crime so that there will be some guidance to the court. Co-chairman Halford stated that is what the elements are. The threat to human life. Jerry Luckhaupt referred to page five, and indicated the conviction has elements similar to those of a most serious felony as defined in the bill draft in section thirteen. Senator Rieger questioned implicitly "all elements" so that the degree of seriousness is one of the elements which must be met. Further discussion was conducted by Jerry Luckhaupt regarding seriousness and to the extent that the crime is similar. This is being used in Alaska now and currently sentences are being aggravated. The recidivism rate is somewhere around fifty to sixty percent of the people who are being convicted of felonies in the State of Alaska. Under our presumptive sentence laws the courts aggravate those sentences adding time to that presumptive sentence based on the number of previous convictions the person has. Arson in the first and second degree were used as an example. Jerry Luckhaupt indicated that the two may appear similar because they both involve arson, but they are not similar because one involves the presence of a person in the building which then makes the crime inherently different. Senator Donley referred to a hypothetical case wherein someone commits their second most serious felony, serves their time, gets good time, gets out; commits their third serious felony. Under the provisions of this bill is there an automatic loss of the good time received during incarceration for the second serious felony or can the judge revoke this good time? Mrs. Carpeneti indicated it is not automatic and those under the third strike do not qualify for good time. Co-chairman Halford commented that something has to be said for one who gets to the third strike in the criminal justice system because this bill is limited to violent acts against people. Rep. Bunde indicated that ten percent of the prison population in Alaska have more than three felonies. The main thrust of amendment #1 is that there would not be an habitual guard-house lawyer asking for a modification every two weeks. Co-chairman Halford asked Mrs. Carpeneti to give an explanation of the amendment. She stated the amendment was requested to make clear that a person does qualify to apply for a reduction or modification of sentence under the three strikes provision they have one chance to make one serious application the court would make a decision on that. Co-chairmen Halford and Frank discussed the fiscal note of $200,000 for the Department of Law and the combined total of approximately $550,000 for the Public Defender and Public Advocate. Senator Donley said he felt every time a law is written to try to limit what the Court and Corrections can do they come up with new terminology to get around what we have done. Latest is the early release of prisoners on furlough. Mrs. Carpeneti stated that this bill does limit the options of the Department of Corrections in releasing prisoners in advance and disallows the placement of people sentenced under this bill to serve in a correctional res- titutional center and a furloughed person must be under the direct supervision of a correctional officer. She indicated there would be no problem extending this to the mandatory ninety- nine year provision. Patty Swenson said the only reservation would be getting it within the title. Senator Rieger and Mrs. Carpeneti discussed whether there were more effective means of punishment than jail and the giant expense incurred. Representative Bunde stated that anyone who has reached the third serious felony conviction has certainly gone through all the rehabilitation attempted and agreed with Mrs. Carpeneti regarding their isolation from society. Mrs. Carpeneti reiterated for Senator Phillips that the Department of Law supports HB 38. Co-chairman Halford referenced a zero fiscal note from the Department of Corrections and asks for a brief statement from them. Jerry Shriner, special assistant to the Commissioner for the Department of Corrections was invited to join the committee and testified that the department opposes CSHB 38. Crime is essentially a young male business and it is likely the person who commits their first or second offense is somewhere between eighteen and twenty-five years of age. Chances are a person will be over thirty years old by the time he is released from prison for the second offense. Statistics say those people have already moved out of the age range where they tend to commit further offenses. The answer to protecting the public does not involve putting people in prison for thirty years. The Department of Corrections has submitted a zero fiscal note based on the fact that as the sponsor pointed out these people are going to serve somewhere in the neighborhood of thirteen or fourteen years under current law so imposing this new law would make no difference. While we applaud the effort to protect the public we don't think that this does it. If we are going to apply money and resources we need to put that effort into preventing and stopping crime in a much more youthful population than we are dealing with in this bill. Barbara Brink from the Anchorage Public Defender Agency testified via teleconference. She discussed the financial cost of the three strikes bill. The first prong has to do with costs associated to increasing the prison population; second prong is increased health care costs for prisoners who reach old age while serving life sentences; and third the costs incurred by the public defender agency, the judiciary, the district attorney's office, the office of public advocacy as a result of increased serious consequences of these cases, the increased rate of going to trial and a greater reluctance of the defendant to engage in plea bargaining. It should be pointed out that if you put our fiscal note side by side with the Department of Law you can see that there is more in common that dissimilar. Both have requested for two attorney positions, anticipation of the same numbers of cases. The difference lies in the fact that the public defender agency is also requesting paralegal assistance and legal secretarial help. This additional support staff is needed because a vitally different function is performed than the Department of Law. In litigation of these matters there is often serious and significant investigation that is required. The Department of Law has its investigation conducted for it by local law enforcement. We provide those services as a necessary defense which often includes extensive pre-trial motion work and a long difficult trial. The California Bar Journal from last year indicated three strikes clogging the jails and slowing trials. More trials, more litigations, more filing of cases is going to have an impact all over the judicial system. If the trial rate is going to be raised that dramatically that is the kind of impact that will be seen and therefore the concern to make sure of adequate resources to perform the mandated functions. And that is why the fiscal note is a plus, a different bottom line. In closing, and the Department of Corrections representative mentioned it also, the public is clamoring for tough legislation on crime and criminals and people are always concerned about violent crimes. But according to the statistics released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics there has been little or no growth in the overall crime rate in the last two decades. In Alaska violent crime is approximately what it was ten years ago. There used to be an "habitual offender statute" in the State of Alaska and it was revamped in the Legislature and imposed on the sentencing to fix some of what were the perceived problems with the habitual offender statute involving different populations, specifically the Alaska Native population. Presumptive sentencing was designed to give equal sentences for equal crimes. Ms. Brink indicated her concern that there will be an impact on our Alaska Native population. Finally, there has been no resultant decrease in the amount of violent crime in response to the passage of the three strikes legislation or in response to the increased incarceration of older felons. (tape changed to SFC-96 #20) Ms. Brink stated that the most lasting legacy of a three strikes law may be diverting a large amount of money and resources into an area that is going to do nothing to decrease violent crimes. Senator Phillips and Senator Frank discussed whether all states fund public defender offices or not. Ms. Brink advised they are funded differently in different states. California, for example, funds the public defender agency through the county. Co-chairman Halford indicated that the Federal constitution guarantees public defense of indigent people. Senator Sharp and Ms. Brink discussed capital punishment and dealing with removing the offenders permanently from the streets. Ms. Brink states that this is a hard question to respond to because this bill is not dealing with capital crimes. Senator Donley asked that Ms. Brink put together a position paper including relevant case law or citations on what the State could do to statutorily limit collateral attacks and how far the legislature could go in establishing the standard of proof in that process of determining whether the prior strikes were good strikes. Ms. Brink felt that the collateral attack could not be limited in order for the statute to be competent and constitutionally firm. Co-chairman Halford introduced Brant McGee from the Anchorage Office of Public Advocacy who testified via teleconference. Mr. McGee emphasized that first, the trial rate is going to be close to one hundred percent because no one is going to voluntarily accept a minimum sentence of 40 years without going to trial once the State has given notice that it will pursue the three strikes provision. Second, each of these cases is going to come as a minimum of three cases; the two prior ones as well as the one the person is now facing an immediate trial. Third, if we assume that the law of unintended consequences is in full effect in these matters the trial rates for earlier second time felonies could well be affected by this. Second offenders will certainly have a stronger incentive to pursue a trial. This will incur a dramatic increase of cost to the justice system, including the courts, the district attorney's office, the public defender and the OPA. The cost which you see in the fiscal notes before you are dramatic underestimates of the total impact of the passage of this bill. Senator Frank asked if Mr. McGee had analyzed the deterrent effect of this type of legislation. Mr. McGee responded that there are two things that need to be looked at; one, to provide a general deterrent on others who might be tempted to commit such crimes; and second, isolation. What we are attempting to do is effect a small number of people who may or may not be a significant risk. Senator Halford questioned if the State (either through PD's or PA's) pays for the attorneys in Federal Habeas Corpus actions. There is a Federal defender in the State of Alaska who would handle such matters. Mr. McGee advised that other states pay for federally mandated defense in Federal Habeas Corpus actions. Senator Frank commented that the evidence says that there is hardly anybody committing their fourth serious offense because after they commit their third under existing law they are in jail until they are past their crime committing time in life. Representative Bunde indicated that information shows maybe old age is slowing down Alaskan criminals or career criminals are beginning at a very young age in Alaska. We are waiving young criminals to adult courts and we have quite a younger population that has a prior felony conviction and this puts them in the statistically dangerous and violent age when they are then up for a third felony. Senator Donley said this bill only triggers if the first felony is very serious and violent. Bills in other states, where there is an ascending level of seriousness, trigger for a fairly minor or less violent felony and then as it builds and the third one is a serious one they will face life in prison. Senator Halford indicated that this is not a single, double and home run, rather three home runs. Senator Donley advised that we have made this bill so conservative in that the first offense has to be so serious that it would automatically carry a long period of time. It is almost a paradox. Senator Halford concurred. Senator Zharoff referred to Senator Frank's comments regarding the bill. The agencies are saying that we are going to have to have the resources in able to follow through. This is not a bad piece of legislation and if we are going to do it let's do it right and let's take care of this problem. Senator Donley MOVED for the adoption of amendment #1. NO OBJECTION having been raised, amendment #1 was ADOPTED. Senator Donley voiced a need to explore collateral attacks and asked the public defender's office and the prosecutor's office to give information on what limits could be placed in the statues; numerical, evidentiary or standards of proof. How does it conform with the existing mandatory ninety-nine year sentence in sections 16 and 17. The sponsor and the Department of Law have no objection. Senator Halford would like this matter taken care of in a reasonable time frame. Senator Donley said the research on collateral attacks may take a little time as it is a very serious question and it will directly relate to the fiscal impacts of the legislation. Collateral attacks should be limited to the maximum under the US constitution. This will reduce the fiscal impact of the bill. Senator Halford felt there may be two issues. One where the attacks may be limited directly and second where you do not have to fund the attacks. Senator Sharp concurred but said maybe we are asking the wrong people for advice. Senator Halford stated Senator Donley's request is reasonable and wants the bill kept on the calendar and moved by next week. Representative Bunde made his closing statement. This is a bill that involved considerable testimony about how it would reduce plea bargaining and that is part of the problem. The criminal justice system has to instill confidence in the public and the public has real problems with plea bargaining. We can't lose sight of the fact that if we don't do something about these habitual criminals the cost to the public will go up astronomically. Senator Halford stated the bill would be heard next week but will take up no issues or testimony already presented today other than the concerns Senator Donley raised. Plea bargain questions are valid. Senator Halford advised SB 178 would be taken up tomorrow before other bills. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was ADJOURNED at approximately 11:10 A.M.