Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/21/2020 03:30 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB190 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 190-PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
3:15:55 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the only order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act relating to
allowable absences for a permanent fund dividend; and providing
for an effective date."
[Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 3/20/20, was
the committee substitute (CS) for HB 190, Version 31-LS1273\S,
Nauman, 3/19/20.]
3:16:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 31-
LS1273\S.1, Nauman, 3/20/20], which read:
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "(16) - (18)"
Insert "(16) - (19)"
Page 3, line 28, following "(18)":
Insert "serving in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps
or the United States Public Health Service
Commissioned Corps;
(19)"
Page 4, line 1, following "(i)":
Insert "paragraph"
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "(7) - (17)"
Insert "(7) - (18)"
Page 4, line 4, following "(ii)":
Insert "paragraph"
Page 4, line 8:
Delete "(14) - (17)"
Insert "(14) - (18)"
Page 4, line 13:
Delete "(4) - (17)"
Insert "(4) - (18)"
Page 4, line 14, following "or;":
Insert a new sub-subparagraph to read:
"(iv) paragraph (18) of this subsection if
the individual is not claiming an absence under (1) -
(17) of this subsection; or"
Page 4, line 16:
Delete "(1) - (17)"
Insert "(1) - (18)"
Page 4, line 17:
Delete "(7) - (17)"
Insert "(7) - (18)"
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated that Amendment 1 would allow
absences for purposes of permanent fund dividend (PFD)
eligibility for those serving in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps (NOAA
Corps) and the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps
(USPHSCC). The State of Alaska currently allows absences for
purposes of PFD eligibility for many people who serve the nation
in the uniformed services. The uniformed services of the U.S.
consist of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, the
U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Space Force,
the NOAA Corps, and the USPHSCC. Members of the uniformed
services are all treated similarly in pay, benefits, and rank,
are eligible for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
benefits, can be members of the Military Officers Association of
America (MOAA), and can enroll in higher learning institutions
using the GI Bill; however, members of the NOAA Corps and the
USPHSCC are not treated the same as the others for purposes of
PFD eligibility. She relayed the experience of a constituent in
the NOAA Corps who was denied a PFD because of time served out
of state on a NOAA vessel; upon appeal, the constituent learned
that statute only allows absences for members of the U.S. Armed
Forces. Representative Story explained that Amendment 1 would
change the statute to allow members of the NOAA Corps or the
USPHSCC to be eligible for the PFD if their absences were due to
their service.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many additional individuals
would qualify for the PFD under Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY did not have exact numbers but relayed that
the Director of the PFD Division [Department of Revenue (DOR)],
Anne Weske, believed it to be just a few.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for an example of someone being
out of state due to service in the USPHSCC.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY suggested the example of someone responding
to a public health crisis.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW stated that the USPHSCC is like the U.S.
military in that they may be transferred to another duty station
or to a place in need of their services.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY mentioned that the members of the USPHSCC
are ranked and saluted like members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the sponsor of HB 190
[Representative Talerico] indicated that he does not oppose
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what the duties were of the
USPHSCC.
3:22:17 PM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Andi Story, Alaska State
Legislature, responded that the mission of the USPHS is to
deliver public health and disease prevention expertise at home
and abroad, as well as to disaster areas and areas affected by
military operations; its top officer is the U.S. Surgeon
General.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned that his mother is in the
USPHSCC; it consists of doctors and health care professionals.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS confirmed that the USPHSCC works closely with
the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) in Anchorage.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no
further objection, it was so ordered.
3:23:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved Amendment 2 [labeled 31-LS1273\S.2,
Nauman, 3/19/20], which read:
Page 3, line 3:
Delete "parent, spouse, sibling, child, or
stepchild"
Insert "person [PARENT, SPOUSE, SIBLING, CHILD,
OR STEPCHILD]"
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated that under Amendment 2, the words
"parent, spouse, sibling, child, or stepchild" would be deleted
and the word "person" would be inserted [on page 3, line 3, of
Version S] before "with a critical life-threatening illness
whose treatment plan, as recommended by the attending physician,
requires travel outside the state for treatment at a medical
specialty complex". She maintained that she has heard from many
constituents who have traveled out of state to care for a
grandparent, a grandchild, a dear friend, a fianc?, or a
significant other, and because they did not meet the strict
family relationship required in statute, they were denied their
PFDs. She added that many grandparents are raising
grandchildren and many people are in serious relationships when
someone they love is struck down by a life-threatening illness;
the amendment would provide the caregivers allowable absences
for purposes of PFD eligibility.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed concerns about the broadness of the
word "person" and the possibility that it would include people
in a caregiver industry with the relationship being commercial.
He suggested using the word "relative" rather than "person."
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered that the word "relative" is
limiting in that a significant other or fianc? would not
qualify. She relayed that Legislative Legal Services offered
the word "person." She said that what is key to note is that
the language requires "as recommended by the attending
physician"; therefore, a physician's recommendation would be
required.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed that he supports the intent; however,
his concern is that it might be misused; given the size of the
personal care attendant industry and the nature of Medicaid
operations, there exists opportunities for abuse.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there is a definition in
law for a relative that is more inclusive than "parent, spouse,
sibling, child, or stepchild" but not as inclusive as "person."
3:28:14 PM
EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director, Legislative Legal Services,
mentioned that one possible alternative would be "domestic
partner," which is defined elsewhere in statute and broader - as
someone cohabiting. She offered that "relative" is defined in
statute, but the definition does not address the issues that
Representative Story has brought forth.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2, deleting "person", retaining "parent, spouse,
sibling, child, or stepchild", and adding "domestic partner,
fianc?, and grandparent."
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for a definition of "domestic
partner."
MS. NAUMAN stated that "domestic partner" is defined in two
places in statute but not for the purposes of the PFD statutes.
She cited AS 24.60.990(5) and AS 39.50.200(4), both which read,
"'domestic partner' means a person who is cohabiting with
another person in a relationship that is like a marriage but
that is not a legal marriage". She suggested adding grandchild,
as well as grandparent.
3:32:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered that it was the number of
additional categories which prompted use of the term "person."
She mentioned that one heart-wrenching scenario involved a
constituent who was caregiver to a boyfriend, with whom she had
not been living; she would not have qualified for a PFD under
the domestic partner definition.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that he could not support language
specifying "person" but would support a longer list of possible
caregivers.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed his belief that "person" is too
broad and indicated that he would not support Amendment 2.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed that "person" is broad and
indicated that she does not support expanding the eligibility
for PFDs.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW concurred with the "no" vote on Amendment 2.
3:36:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew Amendment 2.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS recognized the committee's difficulty in
modifying the list of out-of-state caregivers eligible for PFDs,
given the different definitions in different places in statute.
He suggested additional research with Legislative Legal Services
and possible amendments in future committees of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented that Amendment 2 reflects real
cases of dedicated people and expressed her disappointment.
3:38:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 3, [labeled 31-
LS1273\S.3, Nauman, 3/20/20], which read:
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "(16) - (18)"
Insert "(16) - (19)"
Page 3, line 28, following "(18)":
Insert "because the individual was prohibited
from traveling back to the state by state or federal
order in response to a disaster;
(19)"
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "(7) - (17)"
Insert "(7) - (18)"
Page 4, line 8:
Delete "(14) - (17)"
Insert "(14) - (18)"
Page 4, line 13:
Delete "(4) - (17)"
Insert "(4) - (18)"
Page 4, line 16:
Delete "(1) - (17)"
Insert "(1) - (18)"
Page 4, line 17:
Delete "(7) - (17)"
Insert "(7) - (18)"
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered that Amendment 3 would add an
allowable absence, under Section 3 of Version S, [page 3, line
18], to address the scenario of an individual being prohibited
from traveling back to the state by state or federal order in
response to a disaster. She explained that the unforeseen
circumstance of COVID-19 [a novel coronavirus disease] has
brought to her attention the possibility of future mandates
preventing Alaskans from returning to the state through closed
borders or airlines not flying. She maintained that the
proposed amendment would allow the PFD Division to make
exemptions in the event of a federal or state order.
3:40:20 PM
ANNE WESKE, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR), offered that the [the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001] presented the only other time in
history in which travel to Alaska was inhibited; it was due to
airplanes not flying; and the PFD Division did not waive any
rules at that time. She added that it might be useful to make
the proposed legislation retroactive to January 1, 2020.
3:41:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to
Amendment 3, making the provision retroactive to January 1,
2020.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for discussion purposes.
3:42:30 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:42:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS withdrew his amendment to Amendment 3.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Weske whether the word "disaster" was
clearly defined.
MS. WESKE answered that there needs to be more clarification on
who declares the disaster so that it is considered official.
She opined that it would most likely be a disaster declared by
the President of U.S. and could possibly involve an event
outside of Alaska preventing a person from returning to Alaska.
3:44:19 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
MS. NAUMAN offered language for Amendment 3, page 1, line 7,
inserting the word "issued" so that it reads, "order issued in
response to".
3:45:25 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 to
insert the word "issued" after the word "order" on page 1, line
7, of Amendment 3. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered to work with the next committee of
referral to add the "retroactive" language and any other changes
as needed.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection to Amendment 3.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3, as amended, was
adopted.
3:47:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 4, [labeled 31-
LS1273\S.4, Nauman, 3/20/20], which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "dividend":
Insert "; and providing for an effective date"
Page 4, line 29:
Delete "Sections 1 - 4"
Insert "(a) Sections 1 - 3"
Page 4, following line 30:
Insert new material to read:
"(b) Section 4 of this Act applies to
qualification for a permanent fund dividend paid in
2025 and thereafter.
* Sec. 6. Section 4 of this Act takes effect
January 1, 2024."
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that Amendment 4 would change
Section 4 of Version S to be applicable to PFDs paid in 2025 and
later; and it would change the effective date of Section 4 to
January 1, 2024. She explained that the amendment was drafted
to address concerns [discussed during the 3/20/20 HSTA committee
meeting] regarding individuals, who receiving dividends under
the 180-day absence allowance, suddenly becoming ineligible due
to the adoption of a 120-day absence allowance. Under Amendment
4, there would be a four-year period in which the PFD applicant
would be required to follow the 120-day rule going forward but
not denied a PFD due to following the 180-day rule in the
previous four years.
MS. WESKE commented that Amendment 4 would address the concerns
brought forward in the 3/20/20 committee meeting and she
supports the amendment.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, it was so ordered.
3:49:50 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 190.
After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify,
he closed public testimony.
3:50:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report HB 190, Version 31-LS1273\S,
Nauman, 3/19/20, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 190(STA) was reported from the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 190 Amendment #2 - WITHDRAWN 3.21.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/21/2020 3:30:00 PM |
HB 190 |
| HB 190 Amendments #1, #3, #4 - PASSED 3.21.20.pdf |
HSTA 3/21/2020 3:30:00 PM |
HB 190 |