Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

01/24/2018 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved HCS CSSB 63(JUD) Out of Committee
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                  SB 63-REGULATION OF SMOKING                                                                               
1:01:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
CS FOR  SENATE BILL NO.  63(FIN), "An Act prohibiting  smoking in                                                               
certain   places;   relating   to  education   on   the   smoking                                                               
prohibition; and providing  for an effective date."   [Before the                                                               
committee was HCS CSSB 63(CRA).]                                                                                                
1:02:26 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  CLAMAN,  in  response  to   a  query  from  Representative                                                               
Eastman,  reminded the  committee  that public  testimony on  HCS                                                               
CSSB 63(CRA)  had been closed  during the last  scheduled hearing                                                               
on 1/22/18.                                                                                                                     
1:02:54 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE,  Alaska State Legislature, as  prime sponsor of                                                               
SB 63, referred  to information on veterans' clubs,  which he had                                                               
forwarded to  the committee  following the  1/22/18 hearing.   He                                                               
commented  that  many  grew  up  during a  time  when  there  was                                                               
secondhand smoking  in the  house or  in a  car with  the windows                                                               
closed.  He quoted from a  USA Today article, dated 3/9/14, which                                                             
stated  that  during  the  Korean   and  Vietnam  Wars,  soldiers                                                               
received cigarettes  with their  field rations, and  that changed                                                               
in 1986  when the  Pentagon banned use  of tobacco  and increased                                                               
the  number of  designated  nonsmoking areas.   Senator  Micciche                                                               
said  "things have  changed," and  CSSB 63(FIN)  "brings us  into                                                               
that modern age of protecting those  that choose to not smoke and                                                               
protecting  their   rights  to  breathe  smoke-free   air."    He                                                               
expressed appreciation  for the efforts  of the committee  on the                                                               
proposed legislation.                                                                                                           
1:04:46 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN  said the committee  would consider  amendments, and                                                               
he  advised that  Legislative Legal  and Research  Services would                                                               
have permission to  make any technical and  conforming changes to                                                               
any amendments adopted by the committee.   He outlined a plan for                                                               
the timing he would allow for addressing amendments.                                                                            
1:05:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  moved to  adopt  Amendment  1, labeled  30-                                                               
LS0024\T.4, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:                                                                             
     Page 4, lines 2 - 5:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "(e)  Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this                                                                             
     section,  smoking  may  be   permitted  in  a  separate                                                                    
     enclosed  smoking  area  located   in  a  terminal  for                                                                    
     international  passengers  who  are  in  transit  in  a                                                                    
     state-owned  and  state-operated international  airport                                                                    
     and who are restricted by  federal law from leaving the                                                                    
     airport, if the  smoking area is vented  directly to an                                                                    
     outdoor  area that  is  not an  area  where smoking  is                                                                    
     prohibited under (c) of this section."                                                                                     
1:05:28 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
1:05:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  drew   attention  to   language  currently                                                               
proposed under SB 63, on page 4, lines 2-4, which read:                                                                         
          (e) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this section,                                                                      
     an individual may smoke in  a separate enclosed smoking                                                                    
     area  located in  an  airport if  the  smoking area  is                                                                    
     vented directly to an outdoor  area that is not an area                                                                    
     where smoking is prohibited under (c) of this section.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP said  he  is not  aware  any state-owned  or                                                               
public airports  that have separate  enclosed smoking areas.   He                                                               
said  [Amendment  1] would  apply  to  the international  airport                                                               
system  where  passengers  are restricted  by  federal  law  from                                                               
leaving  the  airport  when  they  arrive  in  the  international                                                               
terminal.  Those international terminals  are set up with smoking                                                               
rooms  that have  ventilation  to the  outside  of the  terminal,                                                               
which  he  said  he  thinks   is  appropriate  for  international                                                               
travelers that  do not have an  option to leave the  airport.  He                                                               
said, "I have  not heard from any airport operator  ... that they                                                               
have  ... an  airport that  they would  like to  build a  smoking                                                               
room.   That would be  contrary to this  amendment.  I  mean, I'd                                                               
certainly like  to hear from them  if they do.   I'm unaware that                                                               
there's a facility  in this state that would ...  take issue with                                                               
this."   He opined  that the  international airport  system needs                                                               
Amendment 1; it  would apply to both the  Anchorage and Fairbanks                                                               
International Airports.   He said  he spoke to the  bill sponsor,                                                               
who supports Amendment 1.                                                                                                       
1:07:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  whether  federal  law  requires  a                                                               
designated smoking place for international passengers.                                                                          
1:08:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  answered there is  not a requirement.   He said                                                               
he thinks Amendment 1 is  "a fairness amendment" that would offer                                                               
[a place to smoke for] someone who  has been on a flight for many                                                               
hours and cannot leave the airport.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  surmised there  are probably  Alaskans who                                                               
work in international airports, and  she asked, "Why wouldn't you                                                               
be just  as concerned  with those residents  who are  working ...                                                               
there than you would be about anybody else?"                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  indicated that  there are places  where smoking                                                               
is allowed  that are  not places  where employees  have to  be to                                                               
serve customers.                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the  bill specifically states that                                                               
employees cannot go out to the designated smoking areas.                                                                        
SENATOR  MICCICHE  responded  that  the bill  states  that  those                                                               
employees are not required to serve those smoking areas.                                                                        
1:11:01 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  offered his understanding  that Amendment                                                               
1 would set a more rigid standard.                                                                                              
1:12:00 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  confirmed   the  proposed  amendment  would                                                               
create a more  stringent requirement.  He said it  goes back to a                                                               
previous version  of the proposed legislation  that was requested                                                               
by  the  director  of  the  international  airport  system.    He                                                               
reiterated that  he is not  aware of  anyone from a  municipal or                                                               
state airport  asking for  a smoke room;  however, there  are two                                                               
international airports that are  set up with "directly ventilated                                                               
rooms for international travelers."                                                                                             
1:12:47 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked for  clarification whether  HCS CSSB                                                               
63(STA), without amendment, has "an airport exception."                                                                         
SENATOR MICCICHE  explained that  a legislative staff  member had                                                               
suggested the  bill include all  airports, but feedback  from the                                                               
Department  of Transportation  & Public  Facilities (DOT&PF)  and                                                               
municipalities showed that  those airports in the  state that are                                                               
not international airports do not  want to build ventilated smoke                                                               
rooms, because  there already  are places  at those  airports for                                                               
patrons to  go outside  to smoke.   He added,  "And the  one case                                                               
that you  can't go outside  is the one  case where we've  made an                                                               
exception, and that is the international airport in Anchorage."                                                                 
1:14:07 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  CLAMAN  surmised Amendment  1  would  require a  municipal                                                               
airport, such  as the  one in Bethel,  Alaska, to  get permission                                                               
from the legislature  to build a smoke  room; currently municipal                                                               
airports  show  no interest  in  building  smoke rooms  at  their                                                               
airport   facilities.     He  offered   his  understanding   that                                                               
Representative Kopp was nodding in agreement.                                                                                   
1:15:04 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said a  consistent theme of  the bill  is to                                                               
have  safe public  work spaces  [by requiring  smokers to]  smoke                                                               
outdoors.    He said  [Amendment  1]  "just continues  with  that                                                               
1:15:30 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the objection was maintained.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER answered no.                                                                                             
CHAIR  CLAMAN   announced  there  being  no   further  objection,                                                               
Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                                        
1:15:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  moved to  adopt  Amendment  2, labeled  30-                                                               
LS0024\T.5, Martin, 1/22/18, which read as follows:                                                                             
     Page 3, lines 20 - 21:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
               "(ii)  is separated from the other business                                                                      
         or building in a manner that does not allow e-                                                                         
      cigarette vapor or aerosol to travel into the other                                                                       
     business or building;"                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
1:15:53 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP directed  attention to  language on  page 3,                                                               
lines 20-21, which read:                                                                                                        
            (ii) has a ventilation system vented to                                                                             
     an area where smoking is not prohibited:                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  said installing  ventilation systems  can be                                                               
expensive.   The  proposed amendment  recognizes  that there  are                                                               
well-established  businesses that  have  good relationships  with                                                               
their  neighbors.    It  would  replace  the  ventilation  system                                                               
language with "is  separated from the other  business or building                                                               
in a manner  that does not allow e-cigarette vapor  or aerosol to                                                               
travel into  the other business  or building".   He said  this is                                                               
consistent  with  a  "complaint-driven"  theme.   He  added,  "If                                                               
people are fine  with you there, this doesn't say  that you would                                                               
have to  completely redo  your ventilation  system; it  just says                                                               
that ... you're not allowing the  vapor or aerosol to travel into                                                               
the  other business  or  building, but  without  putting ...  the                                                               
positive requirement of also doing the ventilation system."                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed  to language on page  2, lines 23-25,                                                               
which  states that  an individual  would not  be prohibited  from                                                               
smoking  in "a  private residence  that  is in  a building  where                                                               
another residence provides  paid child care or  care for adults".                                                               
He  said he  thinks [Amendment  2] would  make the  proposed bill                                                               
"internally consistent"  while giving  e-cig stores  more liberty                                                               
in how they are allowed to establish their businesses.                                                                          
1:18:09 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the objection was maintained.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER answered no.                                                                                             
1:18:12 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN asked  if there was further objection  to the motion                                                               
to adopt Amendment 2.  There being none, it was so ordered.                                                                     
1:18:36 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  requested  the   committee  hear  from  a                                                               
representative from the Department  of Health and Social Services                                                               
regarding  the   department's  fiscal   note  [included   in  the                                                               
committee packet].  She directed  attention to the second line of                                                               
the  second  paragraph of  the  fiscal  analysis, which  read  as                                                               
     Ideally,  the  Division   of  Behavioral  Health  would                                                                    
     consider this as a form  of "passive enforcement" which                                                                    
     could  be performed  in addition  to  the other  duties                                                                    
     assigned to the Tobacco Investigators.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  opined  the  statement is  not  one  that                                                               
"bodes really well  for a fiscal note."  She  asked if the fiscal                                                               
note was  based on "hopes and  dreams" or, as she  said she would                                                               
expect, "cold, hard reality."                                                                                                   
1:21:00 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee  took an  at-ease from  1:21 p.m.  to 1:23  p.m. to                                                               
address a technical problem.                                                                                                    
1:23:02 PM                                                                                                                    
JOE  DARNELL,   Investigator  IV,   Tobacco  Youth   Education  &                                                               
Enforcement  Program,   Division  of  Behavioral   Health  (DBH),                                                               
Department of  Health and Social Services  (DHSS), explained that                                                               
the DBH  is using  a passive enforcement  matrix that  it adopted                                                               
from the Municipality  of Anchorage, which has  had the ordinance                                                               
in place  since 2007.   He  said the division  does not  see [the                                                               
fiscal note] as  "we're hoping."  He relayed that  in the last 10                                                               
years  the Municipality  of Anchorage  has written  two citations                                                               
relating  to  its  smoke-free  ordinance and  has  had  only  200                                                               
complaints.  He said the  division considers that the fiscal note                                                               
will be zero, in terms of enforcement.                                                                                          
1:24:20 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX drew  attention to  language in  the third                                                               
paragraph of the fiscal note analysis, which read:                                                                              
     If the intent  is that the type of sign  provided is an                                                                    
     electronic  downloadable copy  of  a  sample sign,  the                                                                    
     cost  would  be minimal  regardless  of  the number  of                                                                    
     signs requested.   However, if  the intent is  for more                                                                    
     durable   manufactured   or   printed   signage,   then                                                                    
     additional resources would be needed.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX  asked,   "Intent  is   created  by   the                                                               
legislature, is it not?"                                                                                                        
MR. DARNELL answered that's correct.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "So, what does the bill require?"                                                                  
MR. DARNELL  answered that the  bill requires that  signage needs                                                               
to be posted.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   asked  about  signage  that   is  posted                                                               
MR. DARNELL  noted that [signage]  falls under the  [Division] of                                                               
Public   Health.      Notwithstanding  that,   he   offered   his                                                               
understanding  that there  is a  zero fiscal  note for  the state                                                               
because Americans  for Nonsmokers' Rights (ANR)  will be donating                                                               
the money to purchase those signs.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  questioned whether  ANR would  be donating                                                               
those signs for eternity.                                                                                                       
1:26:05 PM                                                                                                                    
CHELEY GRIGSBY,  Health Program  Manager III,  Tobacco Prevention                                                               
and  Control Program,  Division of  Public Health,  Department of                                                               
Health  and Social  Services (DHSS),  responded that  there is  a                                                               
sponsor to purchase the signs initially.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX questioned  how  the state  could come  up                                                               
with a  zero fiscal note based  on a verbal promise  from someone                                                               
to give a  donation.  She said,  "I guess I kind of  find this as                                                               
... maybe a way to avoid giving a bill a fiscal note."                                                                          
1:27:34 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. GRIGSBY said  there is no contract in  place; currently there                                                               
is  a sponsor  who would  donate  the signs.   In  response to  a                                                               
follow-up  question, she  said the  program  currently has  signs                                                               
[that could  be used] by  someone who  wants to replace  signs in                                                               
the future.   She added  that there would  be no plan  to replace                                                               
the signs every year.                                                                                                           
1:28:21 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that the  zero fiscal note  goes to                                                               
2024,  and he  surmised  that  signs would  have  to be  replaced                                                               
before that time.  He asked  how much the donor has allocated for                                                               
the signs and how close  that matches the department's estimation                                                               
of the cost of signage.   He said signage will be needed anywhere                                                               
smoking is prohibited, and that includes  on a marine vessel.  He                                                               
stated, "I'm  quite certain the printing  of a piece of  paper is                                                               
not going to last very long on the outside of a boat."                                                                          
MS. GRIGSBY said  she would have to investigate  further in order                                                               
to offer a response.  She then deferred to Senator Micciche.                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE relayed that the  funding would cover a one-time                                                               
replacement.   He explained that  the money is solely  for DOT&PF                                                               
signage; additional  signs required  under CSSB 63(FIN)  would be                                                               
covered by a grant.   He said the few [signs]  that would have to                                                               
be replaced would  be covered "the way they're  covered today and                                                               
the way they've always been  covered since there's been a signage                                                               
requirement, and that is through  the tobacco cessation program."                                                               
He reiterated  his points  in response  to a  follow-up question.                                                               
He added  that there  would be no  additional burden  [caused by]                                                               
the proposed legislation.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, "If  there's more signs, isn't that                                                               
going to be more cost?"                                                                                                         
SENATOR  MICCICHE  answered,  "I  imagine I  could  calculate  an                                                               
incremental difference in  how that [cost would]  be covered, and                                                               
I would imagine that that increase probably exists."                                                                            
1:32:09 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN  offered an example  wherein the grant pays  for 100                                                               
signs to be replaced, and if  a sign or two needs replacing every                                                               
few years, "they'll  replace it"; however, there are  "a bunch of                                                               
other signs" that  get replaced by DOT&PF as part  of its regular                                                               
1:33:08 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  questioned  how  there could  be  a  zero                                                               
fiscal note when there will be an incremental cost.                                                                             
SENATOR MICCICHE  suggested people can  view things in  a variety                                                               
of ways or  look at the facts,  and the fact in  this instance is                                                               
that there is a tobacco  cessation program originally funded by a                                                               
settlement  with  tobacco  companies   that  is  trying  to  help                                                               
Alaskans  not use  tobacco.   He said,  "They have  a portion  of                                                               
their  funding that  would help  replace signs  at no  additional                                                               
cost to the  state.  That's the fact.   That's the reason there's                                                               
not a  Department of Health  and Social Services fiscal  note for                                                               
the  replacement  of  signs;  that's the  reason  there's  not  a                                                               
Department of  Transportation [&  Public Facilities]  fiscal note                                                               
for the  replacement of signs.   I cannot think of  any other way                                                               
to answer that."                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  maintained that  money currently  used for                                                               
one thing then used for something else is still a cost.                                                                         
1:35:14 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  imparted that the Tobacco  Cessation Fund is                                                               
always used  for the same thing  - not for different  things.  He                                                               
said  he spoke  to  the  commissioner of  DOT&PF  and found  that                                                               
because the signs  for which the department actually  needs to do                                                               
a  hard fabrication  are being  paid for  upfront by  the Tobacco                                                               
Cessation Fund,  and because most  of the  signs can be  put into                                                               
"all-weather devices," the cost of  minimal.  He said metal signs                                                               
last for decades.   The cost of replacing a sign  now and then is                                                               
"so  incremental" that  there is  no sign  replacement fund  that                                                               
requires the dedication of a set amount.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  noted that  it is common  for municipalities                                                               
to partner with industry on many  types of projects to cover what                                                               
a government entity  would otherwise be doing, and  he said those                                                               
kinds of programs  tend to last longer than when  they are driven                                                               
solely by the government.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  said  she  agreed with  the  comment  but                                                               
wondered why  there would not  be a  fiscal note to  reflect, for                                                               
example,  that  private  industry  will   bear  the  cost.    She                                                               
explained that the problem is the total lack of a fiscal note.                                                                  
1:37:33 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX returned to  the aforementioned fiscal note                                                               
analysis, to  a sentence  in the third  paragraph, which  read as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
     Current  grantees and  contractors  will refocus  their                                                                    
     efforts   to  the   implementation   related  to   this                                                                    
     statewide smoking prohibition,  possibly at the expense                                                                    
     of current educational efforts.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  what educational  efforts  may  be                                                               
affected.    She  further  inquired   whether  someone  from  the                                                               
department could state  for the record that  the department would                                                               
not be  coming back  to the legislature  [asking for  more money]                                                               
next year because  there is not enough money  for the educational                                                               
MS.  GRIGSBY responded  that the  Tobacco Prevention  and Control                                                               
Program  currently  has  a network  of  community  grantees  that                                                               
provide  education statewide;  therefore, "we  wouldn't need  any                                                               
additional resources for that."                                                                                                 
1:39:01 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked,  "Then why does the  fiscal note say                                                               
that the  implementation may  come, possibly,  at the  expense of                                                               
current educational efforts?"                                                                                                   
MS.  GRIGSBY answered,  "We're already  doing  the education,  so                                                               
there would  be no need to  do additional or take  from ... those                                                               
resources; they would continue doing what they are doing."                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked for  the reason behind  the sentence                                                               
she had just quoted in the fiscal analysis.                                                                                     
MS. GRIGSBY stated, "So, they  would be refocusing their message,                                                               
when  they're doing  education, to  address the  passing of  this                                                               
smoke-free workplace bill."                                                                                                     
CHAIR  CLAMAN  proffered that  in  other  words Ms.  Grigsby  was                                                               
saying  that  "they're  going  to be  focusing  on  this  message                                                               
instead of the message they're currently focusing on."                                                                          
MS. GRIGSBY answered that is correct.                                                                                           
1:40:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  said she is  still waiting for  someone to                                                               
tell her no one would "come  back with a supplemental" to pay for                                                               
"the message that's now being redirected."                                                                                      
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that it  does not appear anyone is prepared                                                               
to answer that question.                                                                                                        
1:40:54 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  proffered that  DHSS has a  $3.2 billion                                                               
budget and  a $92 million  supplemental [budget];  therefore, she                                                               
said she  does not think this  issue is even on  the department's                                                               
radar, because  the amount  is too miniscule.   She  relayed that                                                               
she  used to  place signs  along trails  and bear  corridors, and                                                               
DOT&PF  would give  her  their  old signs.    She indicated  that                                                               
dealing with signage is already  part of the infrastructure.  She                                                               
added that perhaps the effects of  the signage will be a decrease                                                               
in smoking,  which, in turn,  will result in a  huge cost-savings                                                               
to the state.                                                                                                                   
1:42:10 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  indicated that DOT&PF has  been candid in                                                               
regard  to   signs  being  a  potential   distraction  and  being                                                               
expensive  to replace,  and  he said  he would  like  to know  if                                                               
DOT&PF  would  be  "involved  in  this  process"  and  what  that                                                               
involvement might be.                                                                                                           
CHAIR  CLAMAN noted  there  was  no one  present  from DOT&PF  to                                                               
answer that question.                                                                                                           
1:44:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  indicated he  had learned  during another                                                               
committee's  bill hearing  process that  money designated  to the                                                               
[smoking  cessation]  effort could  not  be  cut, because  it  is                                                               
important to get  smoking cessation materials to the  public.  He                                                               
expressed concern  as to where  the money  will come from  in the                                                               
future.   He added, "I also  wanted to ask if  the department has                                                               
considered that given  that their intention with  this program is                                                               
to reduce  smoking, ... that  reduction in smoking is  also going                                                               
to  reduce  the amount  of  funds  available  for each  of  these                                                               
efforts, education-wise  and signage-wise  and so-forth,  and has                                                               
that been factored into ... this zero fiscal note?"                                                                             
MR. GRIGSBY  answered that the grant-related  message is directed                                                               
to statewide smoke-free law  rather than community-level efforts,                                                               
and the signs  would be absorbed by already existing  funds.  She                                                               
said  the department  is prepared  to adjust  the program  should                                                               
funds  be reduced  in the  future.   In response  to a  follow-up                                                               
question, she said there are no  plans to ask the legislature for                                                               
additional funds to replace the signs.                                                                                          
1:46:58 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about  enforcement, for example, if a                                                               
complaint is filed.                                                                                                             
1:47:58 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  DARNELL   answered  that  for  rural   Alaska,  following  a                                                               
complaint  the state  would send  a  letter to  the violator;  if                                                               
another complaint  was submitted, a letter  with stronger wording                                                               
would be  sent; after a third  or fourth complaint, a  trooper or                                                               
Village Public  Safety Officer (VPSO)  would check  the situation                                                               
out  as part  of  normal  duties.   In  response  to a  follow-up                                                               
question, he said he could not  answer whether a village could go                                                               
a year without  someone stopping by to check on  a situation, but                                                               
he does know  that troopers do their best  in protecting citizens                                                               
and the VPSO programs.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  observed that  no one  is able  to specify                                                               
how  much this  will  cost,  and she  stated  that  it is  almost                                                               
impossible to  have regulation  or law that  costs nothing.   She                                                               
suggested it would  be more appropriate to  have an indeterminate                                                               
fiscal note.                                                                                                                    
1:51:16 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX moved  that the  House Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee add an indeterminate fiscal note.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.                                                                                                
1:51:28 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  reiterated that  the result  of reducing                                                               
smoking could be that the  state saves money; therefore, she said                                                               
she does  not think it  is fair for  the legislature to  tell the                                                               
department  to create  an indeterminate  fiscal  note when  there                                                               
could be a credit.                                                                                                              
1:52:01 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX  responded   that  the   reason  for   an                                                               
indeterminate fiscal note  is when there is an  uncertainty as to                                                               
[the fiscal outcome of legislation].                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  offered   his  understanding  that  "the                                                               
department  is  all  but  saying  that it  really  should  be  an                                                               
indeterminant  fiscal  note,"  and  he indicated  he  thinks  the                                                               
committee would err in not requesting one.                                                                                      
1:52:54 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.                                                                       
1:53:32 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  CLAMAN said  there is  a  motion before  the committee  to                                                               
request an indeterminant fiscal note.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER maintained his objection to the motion.                                                                  
1:54:13 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX restated her  concern about the uncertainty                                                               
of the cost that could be  incurred under CSSB 63(FIN).  She said                                                               
there  has  been  pressure  to   push  the  proposed  legislation                                                               
through, and  it is easier  to do that  with a zero  fiscal note.                                                               
She  said she  has never  seen a  fiscal note  that "talks  about                                                               
ideals and intent."                                                                                                             
1:55:32 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER said  that while  he sees  Representative                                                               
LeDoux's point, he thinks the  House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                               
should  put   its  faith  in   the  departments  and   leave  the                                                               
questioning of fiscal  notes to the House Finance  Committee.  He                                                               
concluded that he  does not see anything that  would preclude him                                                               
from  trusting  in  the  vetting done  by  the  departments  that                                                               
resulted in the fiscal notes before the committee.                                                                              
1:56:35 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said it is  the job of the legislature, as                                                               
a  separate branch  of  government, to  question  what the  other                                                               
branch of government puts forward.                                                                                              
1:57:39 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he thinks  the answer was clearly stated                                                               
that  [since]  the Municipality  of  Anchorage  "rolled out  this                                                               
legislation  in 2004,"  covering half  the population  of Alaska,                                                               
there have been  three violations, which he said  does not impose                                                               
an administrative burden.                                                                                                       
1:58:17 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS stated  opposition to  the motion,                                                               
although he said  he is sympathetic to notion  that "fiscal notes                                                               
can  be massaged  one direction  or the  other to  ... arrest  or                                                               
accelerate passage  of certain pieces  of legislation."   He said                                                               
he  thinks  there are  reasonable  arguments  that the  committee                                                               
should not  be "meddling with this  fiscal note," and he  said he                                                               
would like to  keep the executive branch "honest and  on its toes                                                               
going forward."                                                                                                                 
1:59:17 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX countered that she  thinks it is the job of                                                               
the  legislature  to  question  fiscal   notes.    She  said  the                                                               
committee  does not  know whether  the proposed  legislation will                                                               
cost the state money or save  the state money, and she reiterated                                                               
that is the  reason for requesting an  indeterminate fiscal note.                                                               
She  opined   that  it  is   offensive  that  there  is   not  an                                                               
indeterminate  fiscal  note  in  this case  that  is  so  clearly                                                               
2:00:16 PM                                                                                                                    
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representatives  LeDoux and Eastman                                                               
voted in favor  of attaching an indeterminate fiscal  note to HCS                                                               
CSSB  63(CRA),  [as  amended].   Representatives  Kreiss-Tomkins,                                                               
Fansler,   Reinbold,  Kopp,   and   Claman   voted  against   it.                                                               
Therefore, the motion failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                  
2:01:13 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said  he has learned that all  is not well                                                               
when the  truth is not  black and white  and cannot stand  on its                                                               
own.   He  said HCS  CSSB  63(CRA), [as  amended], includes  good                                                               
intentions,  which he  supports, but  it is  also, in  part, less                                                               
than candid.   He said not only is the  fiscal note process being                                                               
massaged, but  "volunteer" is being  used to mean  "employee" and                                                               
"employer"  is  being   used  to  mean  someone   who  accepts  a                                                               
volunteer's help.   He gave an  example of an elderly  person who                                                               
has  a business,  smokes, has  no employees,  but has  a relative                                                               
come help him lift boxes  every so often.  Representative Eastman                                                               
said  HCS  CSSB  63(CRA),  [as   amended],  maintains  that  that                                                               
relative helping out  the elderly business owner  is an employee;                                                               
therefore, signs  must be put  up and the elderly  gentleman must                                                               
not smoke  in his establishment "even  though he's at no  risk of                                                               
doing anything harmful  to anyone other than  himself through his                                                               
choice of  smoking."  He  said if the legislature  cannot account                                                               
for such a  scenario, then it has not done  its due diligence and                                                               
is putting forward good intentions rather than good legislation.                                                                
2:04:30 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD  said   her   take   on  the   proposed                                                               
legislation is  that it  has to do  with secondhand  smoke, which                                                               
means that  somebody else  is present when  a person  is smoking.                                                               
She said HCS  CSSB 63(CRA), [as amended], does  not infringe upon                                                               
a person's  right to smoke; it  simply outlines where it  is okay                                                               
to smoke.   She said it would apply to  places of employment, not                                                               
to people's  homes.  She said  many people have had  to deal with                                                               
secondhand smoke.   She  said she would  support moving  HCS CSSB                                                               
63(CRA), [as amended], out of committee.                                                                                        
2:05:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  concurred with Representative Reinbold.   He                                                               
said  it amazes  him how  seriously deaths  by alcohol  and plane                                                               
crashes  are viewed  when so  many more  people die  from tobacco                                                               
use.   He said  he thinks  HCS CSSB 63(CRA)  [as amended]  has "a                                                               
light  footprint  considering  the  enormous  public  health  and                                                               
Medicaid  cost that  we pay."   Smoke  inhalation is  one of  the                                                               
number one  drivers of Medicaid  costs.   He said there  are many                                                               
examples where regulations have been  put in place to protect the                                                               
public,  including the  seat belt  requirement and  driving under                                                               
the  influence (DUI)  fines.   He reiterated  that he  thinks HCS                                                               
CSSB 63(CRA), [as amended], does not go too far.                                                                                
2:06:48 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined  that to pretend that a  bill can be                                                               
enforced and mean anything without any costs is to live in make-                                                                
believe land.                                                                                                                   
2:07:19 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER stated  support of  HCS CSSB  63(CRA) [as                                                               
amended]  as a  good and  important step  toward ensuring  public                                                               
health, and  he said  he hopes  an effect will  be to  drive down                                                               
healthcare costs to the state.                                                                                                  
2:08:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER  moved to  report  HCS  CSSB 63(CRA),  as                                                               
amended,  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.                                                                                                
2:08:55 PM                                                                                                                    
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Kopp,  Kreiss-                                                               
Tomkins,  Fansler,  Reinbold,  and   Claman  voted  in  favor  of                                                               
reporting HCS  CSSB 63(CRA),  as amended,  out of  committee with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the  accompanying fiscal  notes.                                                               
Representatives LeDoux and Eastman  voted against it.  Therefore,                                                               
HCS  CSSB  63(JUD)  was  reported  out  of  the  House  Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB063 Supporting Document-National VFW Notice 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
SB063 Public Comment-Supporting 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
SB063 Public Comment-Opposing & Amend 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
SB063 Amendments #1-2.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
SB 63
HB216 Additional Document-FY19 Felons Calculation 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-FY19 Felons Calculation revised 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Additional Document-Old DOC Fiscal Note SB104-DOC-OC-01-21-14 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
SB 104
HB216 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Fiscal Note DOA-VCCB 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Fiscal Note DOR-PFD 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Updated Fiscal Note DOR-PFD 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 DOC Medicaid Coverage Memo 1.24.18.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216
HB216 Amendments #1-5.pdf HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 216