Legislature(1993 - 1994)
1994-05-09 House Journal
Full Journal pdf1994-05-09 House Journal Page 4253 SB 370 The following was read the second time: 1994-05-09 House Journal Page 4254 SB 370 HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 370(JUD) "An Act providing an exemption from gambling laws for gambling conducted by cruise ships for their ticketed passengers in the offshore water of the state; relating to promotions on board cruise ships; defining `cruise ship'; providing for exemption procedures for certain cruise ships before they can conduct gambling in the offshore water of the state; and providing for an effective date." with the: Journal Page JUD RPT HCS(JUD) 3DP 3NR 4025 LETTER OF INTENT WITH JUD REPORT 4026 -PREVIOUS SENATE FISCAL NOTE (REV) 5/2 4026 FIN RPT HCS(FIN) 5DP 1DNP 4066 -PREVIOUS SENATE FISCAL NOTE (REV) 5/2 4066 Representative Phillips moved and asked unanimous consent that the following committee substitute be adopted in lieu of the original bill: HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 370(JUD) (same title) Representative Navarre objected and withdrew the objection. There being no further objection, it was so ordered. Representative Phillips moved and asked unanimous consent that HCS CSSB 370(JUD) be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading and placed on final passage. There being no objection, it was so ordered. HCS CSSB 370(JUD) was read the third time. The question being: "Shall HCS CSSB 370(JUD) pass the House?" The roll was taken with the following result: 1994-05-09 House Journal Page 4255 SB 370 HCS CSSB 370(JUD) Third Reading Final Passage YEAS: 25 NAYS: 14 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Brice, Brown, Bunde, Carney, Davies, G.Davis, Finkelstein, Foster, Grussendorf, Hoffman, Hudson, Kott, Larson, Mackie, MacLean, Moses, Mulder, Navarre, Nicholia, Phillips, Porter, Sanders, Toohey, Ulmer, Williams Nays: Barnes, Davidson, B.Davis, Green, Hanley, James, Martin, Menard, Nordlund, Olberg, Parnell, Therriault, Vezey, Willis Absent: Sitton And so, HCS CSSB 370(JUD) passed the House. Representative Phillips moved the effective date clauses. The question being: "Shall the effective date clauses be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: HCS CSSB 370(JUD) Third Reading Effective Dates YEAS: 35 NAYS: 4 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Barnes, Brice, Brown, Bunde, Carney, Davidson, Davies, B.Davis, G.Davis, Finkelstein, Foster, Green, Grussendorf, Hanley, Hoffman, Hudson, James, Kott, Larson, Mackie, MacLean, Moses, Mulder, Navarre, Nicholia, Nordlund, Parnell, Phillips, Porter, Sanders, Therriault, Toohey, Ulmer, Vezey, Williams 1994-05-09 House Journal Page 4256 SB 370 Nays: Martin, Menard, Olberg, Willis Absent: Sitton And so, the effective date clauses were adopted. Representative Porter moved and asked unanimous consent that the House adopt the House Judiciary Committee Letter of Intent (page 4026). Objection was heard and withdrawn. There being no further objection, the House Judiciary Committee Letter of Intent was adopted. Representative Porter moved and asked unanimous consent that the House adopt the following letter of intent, signed by Representative Moses: "As originally introduced, SB 370 related only to offshore casino gambling on cruise ships. During hearings on the bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee was advised of a practice conducted by a few cruise lines of promoting to its passengers particular shoreside businesses in Southeast Alaska ports in exchange for a fee paid by the business to be promoted. In an effort to put a stop to this practice in Alaska, and with the full support of those cruise lines advocating the passage of SB 370, the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted a provision in the bill to make it an unlawful trade practice under AS 45.50.474 to conduct such onboard promotions unless the cruise operator fully disclosed to its passengers that the business being promoted, mentioned or featured had paid a fee for that purpose. The Senate passed the bill with this provision included in it. When SB 370 was heard by the House Finance Committee, that Committee went even further and banned outright the practice of cruise ship promotion of named shoreside businesses in exchange for fees. The Legal Services Division of the Legislative Affairs Agency has advised that the outright ban of this practice raises serious constitutional issues. The Legislature prefers an outright ban as a matter of public policy. However, rather than risk a successful constitutional challenge and being left with no regulation of cruise ship 1994-05-09 House Journal Page 4257 SB 370 promotions on the books, the Legislature believes that the approach adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee is preferable to adopting a provision that is vulnerable to constitutional attack. The Legislature does, however, wish to express its strong condemnation of this practice and its hope that cruise lines visiting Alaska ports will, as a matter of good public policy, not engage in the practice at all." Objection was heard and withdrawn. There being no further objection, the letter of intent was adopted. Representative Porter later gave notice of reconsideration of his vote on HCS CSSB 370(JUD) and the reconsideration was taken up then. The Speaker stated that without objection, the House would revert to: