Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/02/1993 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 136: DRUNK DRIVING AND BREATH TEST OFFENSES Number 040 REP. VEZEY said he supported the bill, but the state might need to explore more creative ways to deal with drunken drivers. He then moved passage of the House Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) committee substitute (CS) for HB 136 from the committee with individual recommendations. REP. BRICE objected, saying that he had an amendment to the bill. CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Brice to read his amendment, but immediately reversed himself, saying that there was a motion on the floor that the committee needed to deal with first. REP. B. DAVIS disagreed with Chair Bunde, saying that if the motion passed, there would be no chance to consider amendments to the bill before the committee. CHAIR BUNDE said the committee either had to defeat the motion on the floor to take up the amendments, or Rep. Vezey could withdraw his motion. Number 086 REP. VEZEY said he had no desire not to consider other amendments and withdrew his motion. REP. NICHOLIA referred to an amendment to HB 136 she had distributed to committee members. She read the amendment, the individual elements of which are listed as number one through eight, which are on file in the committee room. Number 185 CHAIR BUNDE asked if anyone would move the amendment. REP. BRICE moved passage of the amendment listed by Rep. Nicholia. REP. TOOHEY asked if that was an appropriate time to voice objections to the amendment. CHAIR BUNDE said he would let Rep. Nicholia speak to her amendment, after which he would entertain questions and probably comments from the bill's sponsor, Rep. Mulder. Number 197 REP. NICHOLIA spoke to her amendment. She said some alcohol treatment programs last as long as a year, and as long as a person was attending such facilities and complying with their requirements, that should be acceptable. She said the bill would affect Bush Alaskans and she wanted people to be able to attend treatment programs in the Bush, which might be as long as a year. She said some offenders might need limited driver's licenses not to get to work, but to care for sick relatives. She expressed concern about her rural constituents. Number 239 REP. TOOHEY expressed concern with the problem of people being arrested for multiple driving while intoxicated (DWI) violations, and said the state should have to pay for only one. She said all of the amendment's provisions would unacceptably raise the cost of HB 67. She added that someone with sick relatives should spend their money on their relatives, not on liquor. She said alcohol was no respecter of geographical differences. REP. NICHOLIA asked the committee to disregard the question of a DWI offender needing to drive a mother with cancer to the hospital, and suggested the committee discuss the amendment as it concerned compliance with alcohol treatment programs. Number 261 REP. VEZEY stated the amendment was contrary to the intent of the bill, and he did not equate enrollment into or compliance with an alcohol treatment program with completion of a program. He therefore opposed the amendment. Number 271 REP. G. DAVIS expressed opposition to the amendment. He said courts have discretion to allow for an individual's personal circumstances in sentencing a DWI offender to treatment programs of varying lengths and locations. He also objected to the amendment for requiring various written proofs of enrollment, compliance with, and completion of an alcohol treatment program, as such provisions would add to the bill's administrative burden. Number 290 JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF OF DRIVER SERVICES IN THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, testified from Anchorage via teleconference, making herself available to answer questions on HB 136. CHAIR BUNDE asked whether Ms. Hensley could comment on the impact of Rep. Nicholia's amendment on the fiscal notes for HB 136. MS. HENSLEY said she did not believe that the two elements of the amendment (identified as numbers one and two in the committee files) would have any fiscal impact on the Division of Motor Vehicles. In fact, the bill would help with some of the work burden the division has had since 1991. Number 311 REP. NICHOLIA corrected an earlier statement by Rep. G. Davis', saying her amendment required proof of compliance with, not completion of, an alcohol treatment and education program. She also noted that HB 136 as written included requirements for completion of a treatment program "when appropriate," and asked for a definition of "appropriate." She also said requiring people to attend such programs would cause unemployment. CHAIR BUNDE invited the sponsor of the bill to address Rep. Nicholia's amendment. Number 324 REP. ELDON MULDER said he did not feel strongly either way about the amendment. He agreed with the section of Rep. Nicholia's amendment equalizing the costs borne by offenders incarcerated in community residential centers across the state, as he did not intend for some offenders to pay more simply because they lived in an area of the state with higher costs. He said he believed the state should limit limited driver's licenses to those convicted of one DWI, as the Division of Motor Vehicles had asked. He said the division's current requirement that an offender complete an alcohol treatment program where appropriate would remain intact under HB 136. He left the decision on the amendment up to the committee. Number 348 CHAIR BUNDE said he believed accepting enrollment in an alcohol treatment program as sufficient for receiving a limited license could be too large a loophole and enrollment did not guarantee any benefit. REP. BRICE asked how long alcohol treatment programs generally last. REP. MULDER deferred to Ms. Hensley. MS. HENSLEY said the length varied, but a first-time offender is normally referred to an eight-hour alcohol information school. She said she had spoken with Emily McKenzie of the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) in Anchorage who said that patient compliance with the ASAP program had risen drastically, and fewer people were forced to return to court for noncompliance, since state law was changed to require completion of an alcoholism rehabilitation program. (Rep. Kott arrived at 3:27 p.m.) Number 386 REP. BRICE asked whether treatment programs other than the eight-hour instruction program vary in duration. MS. HENSLEY answered yes. REP. BRICE asked if the programs lasted as long as one, two or five months. MS. HENSLEY said since January 1, 1991, when the Division of Motor Vehicles began issuing limited licenses and requiring proof of completion of programs, no first-time offender who had completed an alcohol program within 30 to 90 days after his initial license revocation had been denied a limited license, to her knowledge. Number 405 CHAIR BUNDE invited a representative from the Department of Corrections to testify. Number 410 DANA LATOUR, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, testified in Juneau, saying she was available to answer specific questions. CHAIR BUNDE asked whether the department had a position on the amendment and on the possibility that a person might have to wait up to a year to receive a limited driver's license while completing an alcohol treatment program. MS. LATOUR said, "Chairman Bunde, I have met with about 52 legislators, along with the commissioner, who feels very strongly about this bill and opportunity to provide alcohol programming to people while they are incarcerated. And if licenses are limited following the first conviction, then he's assuming that if they're with us for 20 days or more there would be an opportunity at that point to have alcohol counseling provided through their CRC placement." Number 422 REP. NICHOLIA asked if the state, by granting limited licenses only to those who completed alcohol treatment programs, would be discouraging people from attending 30-day treatment centers. She also asked whether a 30-day program was not better than a seven or a ten day program. MS. LATOUR said she was not an expert on alcohol treatment and could not answer. REP. NICHOLIA said maybe Ms. Hensley could answer the question. Number 440 MS. HENSLEY said she was not an alcohol counselor and could not answer the question. She said an existing statute required completion of an alcohol treatment program before the issuance of a limited license. CHAIR BUNDE said the amendment would allow the division to grant limited licenses upon enrollment in and compliance with, not completion of, an alcohol education and treatment program. He said the definition of compliance was the crux of the issue for him. Number 447 MS. HENSLEY noted that the law covers only first-time DWI offenders who agree to take a breath test. She questioned whether the state would want to grant a limited license to a person whose breath test showed he exceeded legal blood alcohol content limits and who was shown to have an alcohol problem. She said she considers a person's non-driving related alcohol history in deciding whether to grant a limited license. The state superior court has declared that public safety outweighs even the limited driving privileges of an individual. She asked whether the state wanted people who were bad off enough to require eight-hour or ten-day alcohol treatment on the road at all. Number 464 CHAIR BUNDE asked whether first-time DWI offenders often need more than an eight-hour class. MS. HENSLEY said she had no records to rely on in answering the question, though the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse might. She said that in calendar year 1992, there were 5,700 DWI arrests in Alaska, of which 1,200 were for second offenses, and the average blood-alcohol content of those arrested was 0.19 percent, while the state legal limit is 0.10 percent. CHAIR BUNDE commented that lowering the limit to 0.08 percent would be going against the tide. REP. TOOHEY asked whether it was fair to assume that any of the 1,200 repeat DWI offenders had already attended an alcohol treatment program. MS. HENSLEY said the treatment program requirement for limited licenses only began in 1991, but the courts have required treatment of drivers arrested for DWI through the ASAP program. She said, therefore, that the second-time offenders would have to have gone through some type of alcohol program. CHAIR BUNDE asked if the committee needed more information from alcohol counselors. Number 492 REP. VEZEY said he did not feel a need for additional testimony and called the question. REP. B. DAVIS said the amendments needed more attention before a vote than they had received. She said that it would be appropriate to have a representative from the Division of Alcohol (Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse in the DHSS) available to answer some of the committee's questions. Rep. B. Davis also said that the sponsor's willingness to let the committee deal with the amendments might make it desirable to refer the bill to a subcommittee which could work with the sponsor and the Division of Alcohol. She said the committee must consider the bill's effect on rural as well as urban Alaskans. Number 508 REP. G. DAVIS said he saw some validity to the amendment. He agreed with part of the amendment that would have the Commissioner of Corrections set the costs of imprisonment in a CRC, but hoped it could be possible to allow such prices to be changed outside the normal regulation-setting process. Rep. G. Davis also suggested the committee have the amendments reviewed by experts on alcohol and the law. CHAIR BUNDE noted that Rep. Vezey had called the question, and asked for a roll call vote on the amendment presented by Rep. Nicholia. Those voting yea were Reps. Toohey, Bunde, G. Davis, B. Davis, Nicholia and Brice. Those voting nay were Reps. Vezey, Kott and Olberg. The amendment PASSED 6-3. CHAIR BUNDE announced that the amendment had been adopted and that the committee was thenceforth discussing CSHB 136 (HES) as amended. Number 540 REP. G. DAVIS MOVED passage of CSHB 136(HES) from the committee with individual recommendations. CHAIR BUNDE called for objections. REP. TOOHEY asked if there could be discussion. CHAIR BUNDE answered yes. Number 545 REP. TOOHEY objected, saying she wanted to have an expert on alcohol treatment come before the committee. She expressed opposition to allowing people on the road who might kill others. She said she would like to have a subcommittee and discuss the amendments with the author of HB 136. CHAIR BUNDE noted that the motion to move the bill out of committee with individual recommendations remained on the floor. Number 555 REP. G. DAVIS recommended moving the bill because its next committee of referral was the Judiciary Committee. He said there had been discussion in the last month about how to make changes to bills. He said he had no problem in establishing a subcommittee to study the bill, though it would be the committee's first of the session. He said the amendment, the sponsor's reactions to it, and the HESS Committee's concerns could be dealt with in the Judiciary Committee. CHAIR BUNDE said the committee could attach a letter of intent to the bill. He repeated that a motion had been made to move the bill from committee with individual recommendations. He said that the objections had been noted, and asked for further discussion. Hearing none, he asked for a roll call vote on whether to pass CSHB 136(HES) from the committee. Those voting yea were Reps. Toohey, Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, Kott, Olberg, Davis, Nicholia and Brice. There were no nays. Therefore, CSHB 136(HES) was MOVED FROM THE COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. Number 577 CHAIR BUNDE asked the committee whether it wanted to attach a letter to the bill recommending further discussion. REP. VEZEY said he believed such an action was the chair's prerogative. CHAIR BUNDE said he would presume to do so. REP. KOTT stated that, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, he strongly encouraged Chair Bunde to do so. REP. B. DAVIS told Chair Bunde that the committee could not pass along the bill before bringing a letter of intent back before the committee for its approval. Number 580 REP. OLBERG said he believed any member of the committee members could send a memo to the chairman of the committee of next referral expressing points of interest. CHAIR BUNDE said his notice would not be a formal letter of intent, but rather a notification of individual concerns. REP. TOOHEY commented if there were any question, the committee could pass along relevant verbatim testimony to the next committee. CHAIR BUNDE brought HB 67 to the table and asked for a two minute limit on each individual's testimony. TAPE 93-27, SIDE B Number 000
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|