Legislature(2001 - 2002)

04/24/2002 03:25 PM L&C

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 448 - TELEMARKETERS PHONE LISTS/REGISTRATION                                                                               
Number 0105                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the  first order of business would                                                               
be HOUSE  BILL NO. 448, "An  Act relating to establishing  a data                                                               
base  of  residential telephone  customers  who  do not  wish  to                                                               
receive telephone solicitations, providing  that the data base be                                                               
compiled  at  no  cost  to  the  customers,  requiring  telephone                                                               
solicitors  to  purchase  the  data   base,  and  requiring  paid                                                               
solicitors  to register;  and providing  for an  effective date."                                                               
[Before the committee was the  proposed committee substitute (CS)                                                               
for  HB  448,  version  22-LS1407\L, Craver,  4/8/02,  which  was                                                               
adopted as a work draft on 4/8/02.]                                                                                             
Number 0127                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD,  moved to  adopt the  proposed committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)   for  HB  448,  Version   22-LS1407\B,  Craver,                                                               
4/23/02, as  a work draft.   There being no objection,  Version B                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD,  speaking as the sponsor,  noted that in                                                               
Version B, the  effective date has been changed to  July 1, 2003.                                                               
In addition, a few technical changes  have been made in an effort                                                               
to  clarify who  is  exempted; currently  there  are two  groups:                                                               
those  exempt  because they  are  a  charitable organization  and                                                               
those paid solicitors  and telemarketers who have to  pay for the                                                               
"do-not-call" list.                                                                                                             
Number 0251                                                                                                                     
CODY  RICE,  Intern to  Representative  Joe  Hayes, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,   assisted   Representative    Crawford   with   the                                                               
explanation of  the changes made  in Version  B.  He  pointed out                                                               
that Version  B contains "a  ceiling for  the annual cost  of the                                                               
list"  to those  participating  in telephonic  solicitation.   He                                                               
also noted  that those  who are currently  exempt will  remain so                                                               
under Version B.   He mentioned that there is  a new fiscal note,                                                               
and  that  the Regulatory  Commission  of  Alaska (RCA)  will  no                                                               
longer have  to set  "the reasonable  rate" for  individual local                                                               
exchange  carriers regarding  the  do-not-call list.   He  opined                                                               
that this will save money and be an offset to the fiscal note.                                                                  
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  asked whether  any changes  have been  made that                                                               
will clarify that charitable organizations will be fully exempt.                                                                
MR. RICE  said yes, and noted  that subsection (e) in  Section 11                                                               
clarifies  this  point.   In  response  to another  question,  he                                                               
remarked  that  nothing  has changed  with  regard  to  political                                                               
solicitations - they remain exempt.                                                                                             
Number 0512                                                                                                                     
WILL  ABBOTT,  Commissioner,   Regulatory  Commission  of  Alaska                                                               
(RCA), testifying  via teleconference in response  to a question,                                                               
confirmed  that  the  RCA  does anticipate  a  cost  savings  via                                                               
Version B.  He added:                                                                                                           
     We would  ordinarily include  whatever they  charge for                                                                    
     the "black-dot" now - it'd  be included in their tariff                                                                    
     - and  then we don't  have to do  that any more.   It's                                                                    
     not a huge saving to us  - ... we can probably say that                                                                    
     there's  about a  $1,000  in  there -  but  one of  the                                                                    
     things I  think we  also have to  recognize is  that it                                                                    
     also comes out of our  regulatory cost charge.  So it's                                                                    
     not general fund.                                                                                                          
Number 0563                                                                                                                     
CLYDE  (ED)  SNIFFEN,  JR.,   Assistant  Attorney  General,  Fair                                                               
Business   Practices   Section,   Civil   Division   (Anchorage),                                                               
Department of  Law (DOL), testified  via teleconference  and said                                                               
that after working with the  sponsor and resolving DOL's one area                                                               
of  concern  with   HB  448,  DOL  is  now  in   support  of  the                                                               
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI asked  Mr. Sniffen  if he  is familiar  with the                                                               
fiscal note.                                                                                                                    
MR.  SNIFFEN said  that he  was  aware of  the numbers  contained                                                               
therein and had  some knowledge of how they were  arrived at.  He                                                               
ventured that there is a one-time  cost of about $24,000 that was                                                               
allocated  for regulation  development, and  an annual  amount of                                                               
$4,700   for  personnel   costs   related   to  the   third-party                                                               
administrator  who will  establish the  do-not-call registry  and                                                               
sell the  list to telemarketers.   He relayed that  the interplay                                                               
between that  administrator and  his office  will require  just a                                                               
little bit of DOL's time.                                                                                                       
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  observed that  most of the  fiscal note  will be                                                               
used  for  drafting regulations,  and  asked  whether the  amount                                                               
listed is a reasonable figure for that task.                                                                                    
MR. SNIFFEN  said that  according to  his understanding,  quite a                                                               
bit of  time goes into  drafting regulations:   "you have  to put                                                               
them out  for notice, you  have to have  a ... public  hearing on                                                               
the   regulations,  review   comments,  [and   then]  have   them                                                               
reissued."  He explained that  there is actually someone in [DOL]                                                               
who  is  familiar with  the  regulation-making  process and  thus                                                               
provided   the  estimation   on   the  costs   to  create   these                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  remarked  that other  states  "that  do                                                               
this" generate a positive cash  flow.  Additionally, he surmised,                                                               
prosecution of those  who violate the proposed  statute will also                                                               
result in revenue, which should offset the fiscal note.                                                                         
MR. SNIFFEN agreed  that could be the case since  "this bill does                                                               
contain very good provisions that  requires telephonic sellers to                                                               
identify themselves and provide  more information to callers that                                                               
would help  our department to find  them if we do  need to engage                                                               
in enforcement  or prosecution."   However, he  noted, he  is not                                                               
sure  that  the possibility  of  potential  future revenue  could                                                               
accurately be reflected in the fiscal note.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HAYES   asked  why,  given  the   possibility  of                                                               
generating future revenues, HB 448  did not have an indeterminate                                                               
fiscal note.                                                                                                                    
MR. SNIFFEN pointed out that  notwithstanding any future revenue,                                                               
the costs related  to creating the regulations  will still exist.                                                               
He indicated  that perhaps  the cost  associated with  the third-                                                               
party  administrator  may  be  offset   somewhat  in  the  future                                                               
revenues, but such is still  not something that can be quantified                                                               
at  this time.    He surmised  that  submitting an  indeterminate                                                               
fiscal note will  not improve [the bill's chances]  any more than                                                               
the minimal fiscal note that was submitted.                                                                                     
Number 0914                                                                                                                     
JAMES  ROWE,  Executive  Director, Alaska  Telephone  Association                                                               
(ATA), testified  via teleconference  and said that  although ATA                                                               
is not in support  of HB 448, it is no longer  averse to the bill                                                               
in  its  current version.    He  said  that the  local  telephone                                                               
companies that  he represents have  agreed to advertise  via both                                                               
advertising methods,  although there  is a small  cost.   He then                                                               
referred to  page 3,  line 3, [paragraph]  (5), which  says, "any                                                               
other matter relating to the  data base that the attorney general                                                               
considers  desirable",   and  remarked   that  although   he  can                                                               
appreciate why  [DOL] favors this language,  he wants legislators                                                               
to keep  in mind that ATA  would prefer that no  additional costs                                                               
be placed on the local  telephone industry due to the development                                                               
of   regulations.      He  suggested   that   [removal   of   the                                                               
aforementioned   provision]  would   make   ATA  comfortable   in                                                               
supporting HB 448.                                                                                                              
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI,  after  acknowledging that  the  aforementioned                                                               
language  does  appear to  be  "pretty  open-ended", relayed  her                                                               
belief that  it did  not appear necessary  to allow  the attorney                                                               
general that  extra latitude unless  "it's just so  uncertain; we                                                               
don't know what to anticipate at this point."                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  said that the only  reason that language                                                               
is  in the  bill is  because  the attorney  general's office  has                                                               
indicated  to  him  that  it  is a  necessary  component  of  the                                                               
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Sniffen  what DOL envisions "might come                                                               
under" [paragraph] (5) on page 3.                                                                                               
MR. SNIFFEN said:                                                                                                               
     I  don't  know that  we  have  any specific  matter  of                                                                    
     concern,  which  is probably  why  the  language is  as                                                                    
     vague as it  is.  Because you never  really know, until                                                                    
     you actually sit down and  start thinking through these                                                                    
     kinds  of regulations,  what you  might have  to do  to                                                                    
     implement the purpose  and intent of the bill.   And we                                                                    
     would have  no objection  to changing that  language to                                                                    
     something  along the  lines of  ...  "any other  matter                                                                    
     that the attorney general  feels necessary to implement                                                                    
     the purpose of this  statute", or something along those                                                                    
     lines.   It  certainly  isn't our  intention to  create                                                                    
     anything that  would impose an  additional cost  on the                                                                    
     local telephone companies.                                                                                                 
     I think one of the purposes  of the bill is to actually                                                                    
     take that  cost away and  pass it on to  the telephonic                                                                    
     sellers.    So, with  that,  if  there's some  proposed                                                                    
     language  that would  make  the  telephone folks  happy                                                                    
     that we could put in and  that would still give us some                                                                    
     flexibility  to   implement  regulations   that  aren't                                                                    
     specified  in ...  [paragraphs] (1)-(4)  -- if  we were                                                                    
     limited to drafting regulations  just on those items, I                                                                    
     think  we might  not have  the authority  to accomplish                                                                    
     some other things that might  be necessary to implement                                                                    
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that what  [the committee] would attempt                                                               
to do  is contain any  additional cost  that might be  imposed on                                                               
the   existing  telephone   companies;  therefore,   leaving  the                                                               
language as is [is not acceptable].                                                                                             
Number 1262                                                                                                                     
MARIE DARLIN, AARP,  said simply that [AARP] is in  support of HB                                                               
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI closed  the public  testimony  on HB  448.   She                                                               
asked Representative Crawford  to share his thoughts  on how best                                                               
to address the concerns raised regarding the [paragraph] (5).                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  suggested  adding language  that  says,                                                               
"any other  matter relating  to the data  base that  the attorney                                                               
general  considers desirable  that does  not add  to the  cost to                                                               
local telephone exchanges".                                                                                                     
CHAIR   MURKOWSKI  predicted   that   such   language  might   be                                                               
[problematic]  if,  for  example,  the additional  cost  were  "a                                                               
penny."    She  suggested  that  it would  be  better  to  insert                                                               
language that recognizes  the committee's wish to  limit the cost                                                               
to the local exchange carriers.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  said  he  would be  in  favor  of  such                                                               
MR. SNIFFEN agreed.                                                                                                             
Number 1407                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  made a motion  to adopt Conceptual  Amendment 1,                                                               
on  page 3,  at the  end of  line 4,  after the  word "desirable"                                                               
insert  "recognizing  the  intent   to  minimize  cost  to  local                                                               
exchange  carriers".    There   being  no  objection,  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  mentioned  that perhaps  "politicians  and                                                               
pollsters" should not be excluded from the provisions of HB 448.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD pointed  out that  such an  exclusion is                                                               
required  by "the  constitution."   He then  referred to  page 2,                                                               
lines  [13-14], which  read, "The  fee for  a data  base may  not                                                               
exceed $750".  He said:                                                                                                         
     What we intended  that fee to be was no  more than once                                                                    
     per year, but  if we put "annual" in  there, that would                                                                    
     lead people to  believe that they had  to repurchase it                                                                    
     every  year  even  if  they   didn't  intend  to  do  a                                                                    
     telephone solicitation in the next  year.  I don't know                                                                    
     exactly how  to word  that better.   Our  intention was                                                                    
     ... that they would only have  to pay that fee once per                                                                    
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI opined,  then,  that language  saying, "may  not                                                               
exceed  $750  annually"  would   be  sufficient  to  satisfy  the                                                               
sponsor's intent.   She remarked,  however, that she  thought she                                                               
just heard  Representative Crawford say  that "you only  pay that                                                               
$750 fee when you purchase ...  that data base list."  "You don't                                                               
have to do it on an annual basis, do you?" she asked.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  replied, "If  you  were  to do  another                                                               
telephone solicitation campaign the next  year, you would have to                                                               
buy that list once again."                                                                                                      
CHAIR MURKOWSKI observed, "At a price not to exceed $750."                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed.                                                                                                 
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  reiterated, then,  that it would  be appropriate                                                               
to say, "may not exceed $750 annually".                                                                                         
Number 1609                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to  page 2, line 28, [paragraph]                                                               
(2),  which read,  "the frequency  with  which the  data base  is                                                               
updated".  He said that he  finds that language to be problematic                                                               
because  although there  [will  be]  a toll  free  number that  a                                                               
solicitor can  use to add  himself/herself to the data  base, the                                                               
frequency  with  which   that  data  base  is   updated  will  be                                                               
determined by  [DOL].  For  example, "if  you put an  annual $750                                                               
amount,  and there  was a  requirement  for an  update, then  you                                                               
couldn't charge  for the update"  if it was within  that one-year                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that  although he had asked the                                                               
drafter  to [resolve]  that  issue,  it had  not  yet been  done;                                                               
rather than leave it up to  DOL to determine the frequency of the                                                               
update,  the  goal  was  to  simply have  the  update  done  once                                                               
annually.  He suggested amending HB 448 to that affect.                                                                         
CHAIR MURKOWSKI indicated agreement with doing so.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG argued,  however, that  "it might  be as                                                               
much as  a year  almost before they  could get  'black-dotted' if                                                               
they were a newcomer  - if you didn't have an  update - ... [but]                                                               
if you  had updates  that could  be purchased  periodically ...."                                                               
He remarked, though,  that perhaps that isn't  what the committee                                                               
really wants to do after all.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD said,  "We didn't  want to  do that;  we                                                               
wanted to do it quarterly."                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  asked  whether   there  have  been  any                                                               
discussions  yet   with  "any  of  these   potential  third-party                                                               
contractors and how they would do this."                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD said,  "We've  had numerous  discussions                                                               
with  third-party contractors  and  with  the attorney  general's                                                               
Number 1769                                                                                                                     
MR. RICE  said that according  to the third-party  providers with                                                               
whom  he has  had  discussions, under  federal regulations  local                                                               
exchange  carriers are  required  to show  "that  they can  serve                                                               
phone numbers."  As the  population is increasing, he added, "the                                                               
numbers  that  are  used  are  being used  up"  and  have  to  be                                                               
recycled;  those numbers  are turned  over to  the Federal  Trade                                                               
Commission  (FTC)  on a  quarterly  basis,  and that's  how  they                                                               
accomplish this.                                                                                                                
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  asked why,  then, would  the committee  want the                                                               
data base updated annually.  Why not quarterly, she asked.                                                                      
MR. RICE  said, "That would be  a compromise; I think  that would                                                               
help ease tension."                                                                                                             
CHAIR   MURKOWSKI   asked  Mr.   Rice   how   he  would   address                                                               
Representative Rokeberg's concern.   To illustrate, she posed the                                                               
following scenario:   "The announcements  go out in the  mail the                                                               
first of the year, I don't  move to Anchorage until March, I want                                                               
to  ... be  black-dotted, but  I wouldn't  be able  to be  black-                                                               
dotted until January of the following year."                                                                                    
MR.  RICE  said   that  with  the  exception   of  Anchorage  and                                                               
Fairbanks, that's  how it works  in most of  Alaska:  in  most of                                                               
Alaska, "all they  have is a black  dot next to your  name in the                                                               
phone book  and you don't get  in 'til the next  phone book comes                                                               
out."   Therefore, he  pointed out,  the changes  made by  HB 448                                                               
would not be that far off from current practice.                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  asked, "Why  have the  technology then?"                                                               
He also asked, "Why do it if we're not going to utilize it?"                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD said,  "The idea  was to  keep the  cost                                                               
down; we  would have much  preferred to update it  quarterly, but                                                               
there  seems to  be some  trepidation amongst  the people  in the                                                               
department that  they don't know if  we could do it  for the cost                                                               
that we've set  forth here."  He  added that he did  not want the                                                               
costs to  go too high,  but since no one  knew how high  the cost                                                               
would go for such  as small state, the goal was  to leave as much                                                               
leeway as possible in the current language.                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI suggested  that with  that in  mind, perhaps  it                                                               
would be best  to leave the language in [paragraph]  (2) as is so                                                               
that  the frequency  would be  determined via  regulations rather                                                               
than statute.   She predicted  that as long  as the $750  cap was                                                               
stated in  statute, it would  be alright to allow  the department                                                               
to determine, via regulations, the frequency of the updates.                                                                    
Number 1999                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  pointed out,  however, that  although he                                                               
can appreciate the need for the  aforementioned cap - in order to                                                               
maintain a  reasonable cost  - [solicitors]  should pay  for more                                                               
frequent updates; unfortunately, the cap would preclude such.                                                                   
CHAIR MURKOWSKI conceded that point.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  relayed that according to  his research,                                                               
the highest cost thus far in the nation is $800.                                                                                
MR.  RICE  explained that  different  states  use different  time                                                               
periods  for updates.   For  example, some  states update  daily,                                                               
most  states  update  quarterly,  and  some  states  do  it  less                                                               
frequently still.   He pointed  out that solicitors will  only be                                                               
required  to  purchase  the  list  upon  registration,  which  is                                                               
required annually.                                                                                                              
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  surmised,  then,  that  in  essence  it  merely                                                               
becomes an annual fee.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE   ROKEBERG  suggested   that   by  not   requiring                                                               
solicitors to  receive the updates,  it defeats the purpose.   He                                                               
predicted that this will be problematic.                                                                                        
MR. RICE opined that telemarketers  do not really want to contact                                                               
people who have no interest  [in the products offered] and, thus,                                                               
it will  be in their  own best  interest to get  updates whenever                                                               
possible.   He  said he  doubts that  the data  base will  change                                                               
significantly  over  the course  of  the  year, perhaps  only  as                                                               
little as 5-7 percent.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested that  instead of having an annual                                                               
fee, they  could simply institute  a requirement  that solicitors                                                               
receive and pay for the list  quarterly for $175 per quarter.  By                                                               
doing  so, the  state would  still  be receiving  income for  the                                                               
service, and solicitors that stop  doing business during the year                                                               
would not have to get any further quarterly updates.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  said that option had  been discussed but                                                               
not chosen.                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI  asked what a  solicitor receives for  paying the                                                               
annual fee.   She surmised that the fee would  cover the costs of                                                               
creating  and maintaining  the data  base, and  asked whether  it                                                               
would  be  reasonable  to assess  additional  costs  for  updated                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  said he thought  that there would  be an                                                               
annual cap  of $750 and that  solicitors ought to be  able to get                                                               
as many updates as they wanted.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG surmised,  then,  that  by allowing  the                                                               
attorney general  to set  the frequency of  the updates,  the "as                                                               
yet  unknown costs"  of creating,  maintaining, and  updating the                                                               
lists  could be  taken  into consideration  when determining  the                                                               
frequency;  in   this  way  both   the  original  list   and  any                                                               
forthcoming updates  would not exceed  a cost  of $750.   He said                                                               
that  he  could envision  that  there  would be  different  costs                                                               
associated with different telephone exchanges.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed.                                                                                                 
CHAIR   MURKOWSKI   paraphrased   Representative   Rokeberg   and                                                               
indicated  agreement.     [Tape  ends  early;   no  testimony  is                                                               
TAPE 02-64, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2341                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI again  suggested leaving  [paragraph] (2)  as is                                                               
and  changing line  14 [page  2] to  read, "may  not exceed  $750                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reiterated  that his goal is  to keep the                                                               
costs down.  He predicted that  after the startup costs are taken                                                               
care  of it  will be  inexpensive  to maintain  [and update]  the                                                               
Number 2270                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 2,  line 14,                                                               
page 2, add  "annually" after "$750".  There  being no objection,                                                               
Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                                        
Number 2221                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  made  a   motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  3, line  14, page  2,  after "data  base" insert  "and                                                               
updating".  There being no  objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was                                                               
Number 2195                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  made a  motion to, on  page 2,  line 14,                                                               
increase the fee from $750 to $1,000.                                                                                           
Number 2189                                                                                                                     
CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES,  turning again to  the issue of  the fiscal                                                               
note, said he questions the  House Finance Committee referral for                                                               
HB 448  in light  of the  potential revenue  that the  bill could                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG explained  that bills  with any  form of                                                               
fiscal note,  whether positive or  negative, get referred  to the                                                               
House Finance Committee.                                                                                                        
Number 2120                                                                                                                     
CHRYSTAL  SMITH,  Special  Assistant,   Office  of  the  Attorney                                                               
General, Department  of Law (DOL),  pointed out that  the current                                                               
version of  HB 448 does not  have any provision for  "any of this                                                               
money to back  to the department."  This bill  is drafted so that                                                               
the  money  goes  to  the  administrator and  not  to  the  state                                                               
coffers,  she added.   She  said that  if it  is the  committee's                                                               
intention to have any of  the aforementioned revenue come back to                                                               
the state, HB 448 needs to  be amended to reflect that intention.                                                               
In response  to questions, she  relayed that the  sponsor's staff                                                               
has  been attempting  to get  the  third-party administrators  to                                                               
provide some form of cost model.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CRAWFORD  explained  that originally,  the  funds                                                               
were to come  back to the attorney general's  office, which would                                                               
then pay the  third-party administrator.  The  bill, however, has                                                               
since  changed,  and  now  any  funds  generated  will  be  going                                                               
directly  to  the  administrator.    He  said  that  it  was  his                                                               
intention  to make  "this a  self-supporting program."   He  also                                                               
remarked  that  although  his desire  is  to  satisfy  everyone's                                                               
concerns, that may not be possible  and still have a viable piece                                                               
of legislation.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  suggested that  language could  be added                                                               
to require  the third-party administrator to  reimburse [DOL] for                                                               
the cost of  administering the program, adding that  in doing so,                                                               
it might also be a good idea to increase the fee to $1,000.                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI  remarked  that  by  requiring  the  third-party                                                               
administrator to  reimburse the state,  the fiscal note  could be                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  agreed on that point,  but remarked that                                                               
raising the fee  to $1,000 might result in fewer  solicitors.  He                                                               
said he would prefer to keep the cost down if at all possible.                                                                  
CHAIR MURKOWSKI mentioned that having  fewer solicitors would not                                                               
necessarily  be  a   bad  thing.    She  said   she  agrees  with                                                               
Representative Rokeberg  about adding  a provision  that requires                                                               
the  state to  be  reimbursed  for any  costs  incurred for  this                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said  that he had intended  for the state                                                               
to be  reimbursed; he  had not realized  that that  provision had                                                               
been removed during the process  of changing the bill in attempts                                                               
to suit all parties.                                                                                                            
CHAIR   MURKOWSKI  recommended   that  the   committee  adopt   a                                                               
conceptual  amendment  that  would   ensure  that  the  state  is                                                               
Number 1840                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  made  a   motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4, "that  the state be reimbursed for the  costs of the                                                               
administration of this program."                                                                                                
CHAIR MURKOWSKI called an at-ease from 4:20 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD  said that Ms.  Smith has relayed  to him                                                               
that  "there  is a  way  to  do  this through  statutory  program                                                               
receipts  - that  is like  getting a  fishing license  - that  it                                                               
could be  done."  He expressed  concern that time is  running out                                                               
for passage of this legislation.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO surmised that there is still time.                                                                        
Number 1720                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  MURKOWSKI   noted  that   there  were  no   objections  to                                                               
Conceptual Amendment  4.  Therefore,  Conceptual Amendment  4 was                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG relayed his concern  that in setting up a                                                               
data base  listing one group  of people, then,  simultaneously, a                                                               
data  base is  also  being created  that lists  all  others -  "a                                                               
negative list"  so to speak.   He asked the sponsor  to keep this                                                               
in mind as the bill continues to move through the process.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  HAYES   asked  Mr.  Sniffen   whether  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4 will result in a zero fiscal note.                                                                                  
MR. SNIFFEN said  that assuming the state can  find a third-party                                                               
administrator willing  to take  on this  project knowing  that it                                                               
will have to reimburse the state  for costs, then, yes, it should                                                               
result in a zero fiscal note.                                                                                                   
Number 1636                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HAYES  moved  to  report CSHB  448,  Version  22-                                                               
LS1407\B,  Craver, 4/23/02,  as  amended, out  of committee  with                                                               
individual  recommendations  and  the accompanying  fiscal  note.                                                               
There being  no objection,  CSHB 448(L&C)  was reported  from the                                                               
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.                                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects