SENATE COMMITTEE MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Judiciary

Seventy-second Session

June 2, 2003

The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark E. Amodei, at 1:25 p.m., on Monday, June 2, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. There was no Agenda. Exhibit A is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark Amodei, Chairman

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Dennis Nolan

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Dina Titus, Excused

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

John Albrecht, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Chief Tobacco Counsel, Office of the Attorney General

Michael Alonso, Lobbyist, Lorillard Tobacco Company

Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Incorporated

Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America

Sean Gamble, Lobbyist, Clark County Health District

Chairman Amodei:

The meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary pursuant to suspension of the rules notice is called to order. The hearing is open on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 460.

ASSEMBLY BILL 460 (2nd Reprint): Makes various changes regarding manufacture, sale and use of tobacco products. (BDR 15-1283)

John Albrecht, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Chief Tobacco Counsel, Office of the Attorney General:

I work under the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), as well as youth retail work. We are in favor of the remaining sections of A.B. 460 which strengthen the tobacco MSA enforcement. I distributed a one‑page handout entitled “Amendment to NRS 370A” (Exhibit B) that concentrates on section 80 of A.B. 460 which amends Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 370A.150 to eliminate a windfall to nonparticipating manufacturers (NPMs). Nonparticipating manufacturers are companies that sell cigarettes, have the opportunity to sign the MSA, but decline. Under the law passed by the Nevada State Legislature, the NPMs must make a deposit of 1.6 cents into an escrow account for every cigarette, or stick, sold within the State. After the annual deposit is made, current law allows an NPM to obtain a refund if it can establish what they would have paid had they been a participating manufacturer is less than what they paid into the escrow account.

The two formulas create a financial advantage to regional cigarette companies that sell most of their cigarettes in a few states. Let me emphasize, the 1.6 cents per cigarette they now pay is less than what they would have paid had they signed the MSA. Companies like Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds basically pay 2 cents a cigarette, or more, to the State. Under the NPM statute, NPMs pay 1.6 cents per cigarette to an escrow account that they can only get after we sue them. We have no right to that money, it is their money, they keep it, they get the interest, and in 25 years it is returned to the NPM.

Chairman Amodei:

How long has this been going on?

Mr. Albrecht:

Since chapter 370A of NRS passed May 24, 1999.

Chairman Amodei:

Has there been any effort to initiate litigation since that time?

Mr. Albrecht:

I have sued four or five companies.

Chairman Amodei:

You just said NPMs deposit 1.6 cents into an escrow account out of which they do not have to pay unless they are sued. Has anybody sued them for access to the funds in the escrow account?

Mr. Albrecht:

No one has sued the companies that have established escrow accounts.

Chairman Amodei:

Why?

Mr. Albrecht:

At the present time, we do not have sufficient staff to bring action. Some of the accounts are less than $500. We are bringing lawsuits to force the companies that are not establishing accounts to do so. The amendment to section 80 of A.B. 460 would eliminate the windfall to the current NPMs under NRS 370A.150. We understand the attorney general would not be opposed to restoring eliminated sections on counterfeit cigarettes. There is a reduced fiscal note; however, we are concerned the bill, as it stands, will be allowed to pass in order to strengthen the MSA. The National Association of Attorneys General estimates Nevada lost $2.7 million in 2002 because the NPM market is increasing and they pay nothing under the MSA.

Senator Care:

First, the settlement agreement is what it is and the parties are bound to the terms therein. Second, I am not sure whether the scenario to which you are referring was contemplated. In essence, are you telling us you are unhappy with the MSA, or certain provisions of the MSA, or the way the MSA has worked out? I realize this is a distinct MSA, but when parties enter into one of these agreements, that is it and you live with it. Tell me where I am wrong.

Mr. Albrecht:

All the major manufacturers, and most of the subsequent participating manufacturers, as well as the states, have all agreed to the amendment to what is called the model statute. The NPMs who have not signed, are not signatories, and have not joined the deal, oppose it. The signatories, the states and companies that signed, favor it. In effect, this is the 21st amendment to the MSA.

Senator Care:

In reference to the non-signatories, was what happened unanticipated?

Mr. Albrecht:

I think it was unintended. The idea was to put as much into the escrow account so there would not be an economic advantage in not signing the MSA, but not as much as they would pay if they signed the MSA. If they signed the MSA, at the present time they would be paying approximately 2 cents a stick. Under escrow law, they are paying approximately 1.6 cents. It is a factor. No one anticipated the NPMs would sell a lot of cigarettes in selected states. At this point in time, Idaho and Washington have passed it, and I believe a total of 20 states have passed what is called the repeal of the allocable share release.

Senator Care:

Washington State has also passed gross receipts, but I am not persuaded by what happens in Washington State.

Chairman Amodei:

We would be interested in the history of why this situation is in this particular posture at this point in time, and why the amendment was not added in the Assembly.

Mr. Albrecht:

Are you asking the reason the Assembly deleted it?

Chairman Amodei:

Everybody will have a chance. If you do not know, then just say you do not know.

Mr. Albrecht:

I do not know.

Chairman Amodei:

Very good, thank you.

Michael Alonso, Lobbyist, Lorillard Tobacco Company:

The issue on contraband and counterfeit cigarettes came through the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and got stuck in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. The main issue was the fiscal note. Fiscal staff was not comfortable with how the bill would reverse the expense on the fiscal side. The State going after counterfeiters to collect money is a difficult concept to understand. Consequently, the bill did not go anywhere in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. When the contraband portion was deleted, the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means moved the bill with no fiscal impact.

Chairman Amodei:

Mr. Albrecht, did you indicate present law costs the State approximately $2 million per year?

Mr. Albrecht:

There are two things to consider, the NPM growth and the nonparticipating manufacturing market. The National Association of Attorneys General estimates, under the MSA, the State of Nevada loses $2.7 million of anticipated receipts. It is not money that could be collected under any tax passed. A pack of cigarettes in Nevada now costs approximately $3.56. The MSA payments, federal tax, and current State tax, is $1.14 of that $3.56. Should that be raised by the Legislature, it will increase incentive for counterfeiters. At the present time, they save $1.14 a package if they counterfeit a cigarette. If the tax increases they will save even more money.

Chairman Amodei:

Before we extrapolate into what the Legislature does or does not do with tobacco taxes, the present-day, projected loss of State revenue in this issue is approximately $2.7 million per year.

Mr. Albrecht:

It is comparing apples with oranges. The $2.7 million is lost because of growth in the NPM market, and the NPM market is growing because of the provision that allows the refund out of the escrow account.

Mr. M. Alonso:

Take the original bill, break it into two parts, set the contraband portion aside, and the $2.7 million impact is only on the NPM side. The financial impact is not known on the contraband side due to a lack of resources to calculate the extent the State is losing revenue due to contraband and counterfeit cigarettes because of the economic advantage received by NPMs in the cigarette marketplace. At the time the MSA was signed, NPMs had approximately 2 percent of the marketplace. Currently, they have somewhere north of 10 percent to 12 percent. Each percentage point in the tobacco business is $1 billion. Therefore, the NPMs have an advantage, which was inadvertent, and are able to sell their cigarettes cheaper. They do not have restrictions on marketing to children, or any such things, to which participating manufacturers are subject because they are signatories to the MSA. Consequently, as the participating manufacturers’ market share shrinks, payments under the MSA also shrink, and states receive less money. The $2.7 million is based on that argument.

Senator Care:

What is happening in the jurisdictions of states where the territories did not enter into the MSA?

Mr. Albrecht:

There are four states that did not sign the MSA, but they signed their own agreement before the MSA was entered. Everyone has some kind of MSA.

Senator Care:

Are the terms essentially the same?

Mr. Albrecht:

Yes, they have all youth-marketing restrictions. The four states do not have the NPM included in their agreements.

Senator Care:

The second reprint of A.B. 460 came out of the Assembly today and contains language that is not in the proposed amendment. In the interplay between section 81 and section 84 of A.B. 460, “ … if a court of competent jurisdiction … ,” the language is dubious. It may be standard but I do not recall ever seeing it. The language disturbs me. Why would such language be put in a statute? Section 81 of the first reprint of A.B. 460 says, “Becomes effective on the date a court of competent jurisdiction enters a judgment determining that the amendatory provisions of section 80 of this act are unconstitutional.” I am unfamiliar with that language and perhaps you can explain it.

Mr. Albrecht:

It was agreed to by participating manufacturers and the states. Should the repeal of the allocable share release be declared unconstitutional, there would be no release under any circumstances. Should it be declared unconstitutional, it would go back to the current language. It is a matter of an effective date if the sections you adopt are declared unconstitutional. The broad language of effective dates was proposed and agreed on by participating manufacturers and states. Nevada took a unique approach which was decided upon by legislative counsel. However, the concept was adopted in state after state.

Senator Care:

The language in the proposed amendment was taken from Senator Barbara Cegavske’s bill. Was the language regarding a person under age 18 fraudulently misrepresenting his or her age removed?

Mr. Albrecht:

That language is in the current version.

Senator Care:

It is in the second reprint of A.B. 460, but is it in the proposed amendment as well? What are the substantive changes with the proposed amendment? I read the first reprint of A.B. 460; however, I did not receive the second reprint of A.B. 460 until I came to this hearing.

Mr. Albrecht:

The Assembly passed the prohibition on children fraudulently misrepresenting their age on which the attorney general has not taken a position. Those are sections 3 through 8 of the second reprint of A.B. 460. Section 38 of the second reprint of A.B. 460 is called complimentary legislation and strengthens the current requirement for maintaining the escrow account. Let me give you an illustration. Quarterly deposits, rather than one annual deposit in the year following the sales occurs, are required. Nonparticipating manufacturers are required to register to keep them from selling their cigarettes throughout the State for a year and then refusing to pay 1.6 cents a cigarette. At present, it is difficult because companies change names, brands, and all sorts of things to avoid paying the escrow account.

Senator Care:

Is that part in every version of the bill?

Mr. Albrecht:

That is correct. Section 80 of the second reprint of A.B. 460 amends NRS 370A.150. The Office of the Attorney General, as well as the National Association of Attorneys General, support both the complimentary legislation and the amendment provided in regard to section 80 of the second reprint of A.B. 460.

Senator Care:

Did the language of the bill, as originally introduced, read word for word the same as the statutes adopted by the other states?

Mr. Albrecht:

Yes.

Senator Care:

It seems to me the bill has had a somewhat strange voyage. Can you tell us why certain language was dropped and now other language is proposed? I assume you looked at other states and decided to use the language in their statutes. Now we have had a second reprint and possibly a third.

Mr. M. Alonso:

There are two model statutes, one is complimentary legislation which deals with contraband and counterfeiting, and one deals with the NPM. Both were put in this particular bill.

Mr. Albrecht:

Sections 80 through 84 of the second reprint of A.B. 460 deal with the amendment to the model act, required by the MSA, which repeals the allocable share release. That is one thing. Then, sections 38 through 58 of the second reprint of A.B. 460 contain the complimentary legislation which strengthens collections under the escrow account as it stands.

Senator Care:

That is the quarterly payment?

Mr. Albrecht:

That is the quarterly payment and requires registered agents for service of process. We do not stamp cigarettes unless the NPM company has demonstrated all the brands they sell and proven they complied with the law in the past. We list cigarettes when the NPMs show they complied in the past and will comply in the future.

We would support restoring the language on counterfeit cigarettes deleted by the Assembly given the financial support to enforce it. The possibility the Legislature could make a pack of cigarettes that much more would create an incentive for counterfeiters.

Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Incorporated:

In most states, the two pieces have been separated. The complimentary and NPM piece have been one, the counterfeit and contraband have been two, and they have been combined in this measure. Unfortunately, there was confusion over how to fund it. Obviously, as Michael Alonso earlier indicated, there was also confusion as to how this could potentially impact the General Fund in years to come because what is lost cannot be quantified. What can be quantified is the incredible surge of growth in the NPM market to the point where the MSA is suffering. In essence, the straight NPM and complimentary piece allows the State to collect the same amount as the participating manufacturers, and the NPMs would have to put the same amount into the escrow account. That will give no one an advantage and make certain the State receives needed money. At the present time, the NPMs are getting 99.4 percent back; therefore, it is an incredible advantage for them in the marketplace, and there are inexpensive cigarettes at the expense of the MSA.

Senator Care:

Would you agree with this characterization? On one hand, as a matter of public policy, you want to preserve the fitness of the account for the MSA, the trust fund. If I were one of the other guys, I might view it as restraint of trade. I am sure that argument came up at some point. There is precedence for doing it because it depends on the policy. Would you address interfering with the marketplace?

Mr. Albrecht:

Because they did not sign the MSA, NPMs are not prohibited from marketing cigarettes to children, outdoor advertising, transit advertising, and promoting giveaways that might appeal to children. They are free in their manner of marketing the sale of cigarettes. I have worked many years to reduce cigarette use by children. In this part, the NPMs are allowed to roam free in the area of marketing to children and very little can be done to prevent it. Therefore, I do not think they have the restraints of which you speak. They have an increased amount of payment that does not even equal what a participating manufacturer pays per stick. A participating manufacturer pays 2 cents per stick and 1.6 cents into an escrow account, and can get a release if they market their cigarettes in 5 or 10 states, rather than all 50 states.

Senator Care:

I know they are free to do it, but do they?

Mr. Albrecht:

I have applications for releases under the allocable share amendment pending in my office. I have one lawsuit against me in federal court in Oregon by the Carolina Tobacco Company and they are seeking attorney fees from the State of Nevada. We oppose it because they should not take us into federal court in Oregon. It is the wrong place. They belong in our courts in our State. Secondly, we do not think they are entitled to the release under the allocable share.

Senator Care:

Aside from quarterly payments, could we simply say it is hereby unlawful to, and just enumerate? We could say they cannot engage in these acts if they sell cigarettes.

Mr. Albrecht:

The Legislature could do that.

Mr. A. Alonso:

The amendment, with respect to counterfeit and contraband cigarettes, has been discussed with the people at Philip Morris. Due to lack of time to take the issue to the Senate Committee on Finance for a proper hearing, we believe the best scenario for this bill, and the State, would be to pass what is before you, which is the NPM complimentary. This would strictly protect the MSA and would not contain the other piece. I think it is too new and there are too many problems to be ironed out, particularly on the financing end.

Chairman Amodei:

Mr. A. Alonso, who are you representing at this hearing?

Mr. A. alonso:

I represent R.J. Reynolds.

Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association:

We are at the last end of the chain in regard to legal retailing of tobacco products. We support A.B. 460, particularly sections 3 through 8, which we fought for over the last four or five Legislative Sessions. There was an attempt in the Assembly to remove the language to penalize youth for using false identification, but fortunately, it failed. It is a big issue for retailers. Currently, the only person liable in a tobacco transaction involving underage youth is the sales clerk. We accept that responsibility. Sales clerks and companies pay fines all too frequently. We train clerks and Mr. Albrecht operates stings which keeps us in top form. However, no excuses, we make mistakes.

We think sections 3 through 8 of the second reprint of A.B. 460, as meager as it is, is the first attempt to place some responsibility on youth. At Carson High School, or any high school area, you do not have to go far off campus to find groups of smoking youths. Law enforcement cannot move them on and this legislation will not accomplish it. This legislation will mandate should a youth present fraudulent identification, he or she will not be detained, as has been suggested in previous bills. The legislation will deem in the course of doing business the youth was found to have presented fraudulent identification when attempting to purchase tobacco products and he or she would assume part of the responsibility for it. As to the issue of whether such legislation would clog juvenile courts, judges would probably refer the youth to a smoking cessation program or something of that nature. Therefore, this is an important issue and one of several reasons we support the bill.

In regard to NPM language, youth marketing and advertising is crucial to us. As retailers, we need a set of rules to follow and this will help obtain them. I agree contraband is an important concept, but I would rather see this committee and the Legislature process the bill with inclusion of youth penalties and the NPM portion in order to move forward in the area of youth access to tobacco.

Chairman Amodei:

Did we pass something like this in one of Senator Barbara Cegavske’s bills?

Mr. Krueger:

Yes, I believe it was S.B. 339 that went nowhere.

SENATE BILL 339 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to use of tobacco products. (BDR 15-1126)

Senator Care:

I remember well the debate on S.B. 339. With only 10 hours to go in this Legislative Session, we are reopening cigarette tobacco bills, S.B. 66 and S.B. 50, which, I guess, is fair game in this magical mystery tour we call the legislative process. I do not know the pleasure of the Chairman; however, I will not vote on this within the hour. Although I will listen to testimony, this is something I will deliberate between discussing gross receipts and alcohol taxes.

SENATE BILL 66 (2nd Reprint): Revises provisions governing certain agreements for sale of cigarettes. (BDR 52-186)

SENATE BILL 50 (1st Reprint):Revises various provisions pertaining to tobacco and products made from tobacco. (BDR 15-260)

Chairman Amodei:

I want you to know I find your comments incredibly cynical and I would appreciate it if you would abbreviate them for the future purposes of this meeting.

Senator Care:

Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the Legislature, the last thing we need is idealism.

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America:

The Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of American is an NPM. We are not counterfeiters. We are not signatories to the MSA. We are not required to sign the MSA. Some small manufacturers have, by choice, signed the MSA, others have not. Our legal position relative to it is contained in (Exhibit C). We agree with Senator Care that we had every right not to sign the MSA. Under the law, we are subject to being sued, but we do not have the protections of the MSA. Therefore, we have other rights and responsibilities, but do pay into an escrow account.

In the last 10 hours of the 72nd Legislative Session, I would like to explain what this fight is all about. This fight is all about big tobacco versus little tobacco. This fight is all about Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and other large manufacturers attempting to take away whatever small economic advantage may be had by the little independent manufacturers in 50 states. Costco, 7‑Eleven stores, and the like, carry generic and other odd brand-name cigarettes with Nevada tax stamps all appropriately paid. We are not the counterfeit folks. Many consumers have opted to buy cigarettes that are less per carton, or pack, than brand names.

Section 80 of the second reprint of A.B. 460 will force the price of those cigarettes up to prices paid for brand-name cigarettes. What happens to the little guy? He disappears from the marketplace. That is what this whole argument is about. It takes a circuitous route to get there, but is the end result of this language.

We talked to the parties who brought the language forward. The answers we received were not pleasant, and the answer was no. Most of you attended the 68th Legislative Session in 1995, either in the Senate or Assembly, when divorcement was the subject and we talked about gasoline. As you recall, there was a huge fight between the large manufacturers, the Arcos and the Standard Oils, and all the little guys out there in the unbranded gas stations. This is the same fight; however, in that fight we were able to reach agreement because I represented the little guys there as well. The Legislature established a policy in which big oil companies could own more stations than they previously owned without putting little oil companies out of business. In this case, you are asked to take steps to make little tobacco companies difficult to operate.

Mr. Ostrovsky:

Testimony indicated the people who signed the MSA agreed it is a great thing. It is wonderful for Brown and Williamson, R.J. Reynolds, and Philip Morris; however, we have agreed to nothing. We want you to understand from whence we are coming. Clearly, the constitutional out is in the bill because they know it is a stretch. They know what will happen here and in other states as a result of this language. The independent manufacturers will sue. There will be litigation whether or not it is deemed possible under the MSA which cannot be amended. The MSA signatories have agreed to amendments, not those who were non‑signatory to the MSA.

This is about consumer choice and fairness in the marketplace. It has been suggested the State may, in fact, be losing money because the little independent guys have received a larger market share. It reduces what big tobacco may have paid into the fund, which is distributed back to the State. There is no argument here. The escrow money is available should there be suit, if not, it is returned in 25 years to the manufacturers. Yes, the little manufacturers eroded the market position of big tobacco and they did exactly as I expected. Rather than competing in the marketplace and lowering the price of their cigarettes and profitability, they want the little manufacturers to raise their prices to Nevada consumers.

Senator Care:

There was a bill in which we raised, on a graduated basis, the qualifying grade point average for Millennium Scholarship students. It is not going to be 3.0, it goes to 3.1, and I think eventually 3.25, which is one of the reasons we do not have the projected funds from the program created in the 70th Legislative Session. There is an argument to be made about preserving the trust fund for the scholarship program. I am also perturbed about testimony from the State regarding the conduct of the non-signatories.

I have two requests. First, please address allegations. Second, do you have any proposed amendments to A.B. 460 with which you could live that do not tread upon interference with the marketplace?

Mr. Ostrovsky:

Little tobacco manufacturers are not restricted by the same marketing restrictions in the MSA. Whether or not they market to minors is something that would have to be proven by the State. We would argue, as a policy, we do not. Clearly, the State could restrict it for all manufacturers. An individual cigarette manufacturer might do so; however, I am not aware of the specifics relative to that.

We have not offered any amendments because the other side has told us, no, and hell no. Therefore, we have not offered any amendments other than to ask section 80 be removed from the second reprint of A.B. 460.

Senator Care:

I want to disclose Michael K. Sullivan, Lobbyist, Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturing, represented me in the past on political matters; however, I will still be able to vote on the bill.

Chairman Amodei:

I disclose the next testifier helped me in my last campaign.

Sean Gamble, Lobbyist, Clark County Health District:

I know nothing about the second reprint of A.B. 460 in its current form, nor does the Clark County Health District take a stand on the bill, but we would like to attach an amendment to it. We propose an amendment that would eliminate smoking in child care facilities, video arcades with ten or more machines, and public buildings, with the exception of airports and convention centers. It is more permissive than the language of amendments in the past and will allow smoking outside entryways and exits of public buildings, with the exception of one entryway to be kept clear of smoking to allow people to enter and exit without inhaling smoke. In addition, any private home child care facility with fewer than five children would not be affected.

Senator Care:

Does the amendment apply to public buildings leased by the State? If so, there may be a public building with only one entrance, in which case it would have to be smoke-free.

Ms. Gamble:

My understanding of a public building is any government building.

Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel:

I believe that is correct. The statute refers to buildings owned or occupied; therefore, it would encompass a lease.

Senator McGinness:

To further complicate the issue, what about a building in which a few offices are leased by the State or county?

Mr. Wilkinson:

The statute reads, a public building only refers to the portion of
the building occupied by the government entity; therefore, this issue would be interpreted in that context.

Ms. Gamble:

For the first time we have come up with an amendment that is not opposed by Philip Morris, Lorillard Tobacco, or R.J. Reynolds Tobacco.

Chairman Amodei:

The hearing is closed on the second reprint of A.B. 460.

Mr. Anthony or Mr. Wilkinson, what are the logistics for processing this bill in the time remaining in the Legislative Session? May the committee members have until 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. to address the amendments and work session the bill, or would it press logistical support available to the committee on this measure?

Mr. Wilkinson:

Four o’clock or five o’clock would be doable and we could draft something in advance should the measure subsequently change.

Chairman Amodei:

Assuming the committee was limited to what was in the two proposed amendments and the bill itself and nothing larger, but potentially something smaller, would that help you with your answer?

Mr. Wilkinson:

Yes, we could do that.

Chairman Amodei:

For purposes of work session on the second reprint of A.B. 460, are there any objections from the committee to consider all, part, or none of both proposed amendments and the bill as it came over from the Assembly?

Senator Care:

That is fine, although I may have some thoughts of my own.

Chairman Amodei:

I would in no way imply that you never would.

There being no further business to come before the committee, the hearing is adjourned at 2:08 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Barbara Moss,