Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/11/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB123 | |
| HB71 | |
| HB219 | |
| HB91 | |
| HB109 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 123 | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 11, 2005
1:41 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:41:29 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Reggie Joule
ALSO PRESENT
Rick Urion, Director, Occupational Licensing, Department of
Community and Economic Development; John Walsh, Lobbyist,
Alaska Psychological Association; William Corbus,
Commissioner, Department of Revenue; Mitch Usibelli,
Manager, Usibelli Energy; Representative Jay Ramras;
Representative John Coghill; Representative Ralph Samuels
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Linda Wilson, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration; Martin Beals, Jr., M.D.,
Pediatrician, Anchorage; Debbie Golden, March of Dimes,
Anchorage; Lisa Owens, Audiologist, Anchorage; Debbie
Joslin, Eagle River; Tara Henry, Sexual Abuse Nurse Examiner
(SANE), Anchorage, Tamara DeLucia, Office of Victim's
Rights; Dan Dickinson, Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue; Colleen Chinn-Acca, Fairbanks; Martin Beals, Jr.,
M.D. Pediatrician, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 123 "An Act relating to occupational licensing fees
and receipts; extending the termination dates of
the Boards of Barbers and Hairdressers, Social
Work Examiners, Pharmacy, Professional Counselors,
Psychologist and Psychological Associate
Examiners, and Veterinary Examiners; relating to
an exemption that allows one bill to continue more
than one board, commission, or agency program; and
providing for an effective date."
CSHB 123 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" recommendation and with
fiscal impact note #1 by the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
HB 71 "An Act relating to a credit for certain
exploration expenses against oil and gas
properties production taxes on oil and gas
produced from a lease or property in the state;
relating to the deadline for certain exploration
expenditures used as credits against production
tax on oil and gas produced from a lease or
property in the Alaska Peninsula competitive oil
and gas area wide lease sale area after July 1,
2004; and providing for an effective date."
HB 71 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 219 "An Act relating to crimes and dangerous
instruments."
CSHB 219 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with three zero
fiscal impact notes: #1 CRT, #2 LAW, #3 DPS, and a
new ADM zero fiscal note.
HB 91 "An Act relating to indecent exposure."
HB 91 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with three zero fiscal
impact notes: #1 ADM, #2 LAW, and #3 CRT.
HB 109 "An Act relating to establishing a screening,
tracking, and intervention program related to the
hearing ability of newborns and infants; providing
an exemption to licensure as an audiologist for
certain persons performing hearing screening
tests; relating to insurance coverage for newborn
and infant hearing screening; and providing for an
effective date."
HB 109 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
1:41:44 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act relating to occupational licensing fees and
receipts; extending the termination dates of the Boards
of Barbers and Hairdressers, Social Work Examiners,
Pharmacy, Professional Counselors, Psychologist and
Psychological Associate Examiners, and Veterinary
Examiners; relating to an exemption that allows one
bill to continue more than one board, commission, or
agency program; and providing for an effective date."
RICK URION, DIRECTOR OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; offered to answer
questions regarding HB 123.
Co-Chair Meyer asked for an explanation of the $486,000
fiscal note. Mr. Urion reported that the fiscal note covers
direct costs by the boards. Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired if
that amount is already built into the budget. Mr. Urion
replied that is correct.
Co-Chair Meyer asked where the funds from the fines and
penalties go. Mr. Urion explained that the fines went to
the profession until a few years ago. It was discovered
that fines are not covered in law, so new legislation was
needed. He related that the fines do not generate revenue
because it costs money to collect them. The bill addresses
an issue of fairness when it allows fines and penalties
collected by various occupations to be included with fee
collections for the purpose of determining whether revenue
collected approximately equals the total costs of regulation
for an occupation or board.
1:46:28 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked how much the Department of Law
actually spends on collecting the fines. Mr. Urion replied
that he could look up the records. He added that there are
five personnel alone that deal with occupational licensing
issues.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if licensing fines are
determined on a case-by-case method. Mr. Urion replied that
various boards have various methods of figuring out the
fines. Representative Weyhrauch suggested that some cases
might be technical violations, others fraud, which would
require different fine amounts. Mr. Urion said that is
correct.
1:49:11 PM
Representative Hawker asked if there is unequal allocation
of fine costs between occupations. Mr. Urion replied that
would be handled at individual board levels. Costs from a
profession will be borne by its own profession. He
emphasized that every profession favors this bill.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if licensing fees would decrease. Mr.
Urion replied that the amount is miniscule.
1:51:44 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to adopt Amendment 3:
Page 1, line 1
After "An act relating to"
Delete "occupational licensing fees and receipts;"
Page 1, line 7
Delete Section 1
Page 2, line 28
Delete Section 2
Page 3, line 9
Delete Section 3
Page 3, line 20
Delete Section 4
Page 4, line 22
Delete Section 11
Page 4, line 27
Delete Section 12
Renumber remaining sections accordingly.
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Hawker explained that the Amendment 3 deletes
all sections in the bill not related to the extensions of
the boards. The committee has attempted in the past to keep
board extensions clean and not cluttered with other issues,
not mix policy with ministerial activities. He suggested
that the committee would need to hear from all of the boards
in order to know that they all are supportive of the new CS.
Mr. Urion related that last year he was directed to write
this bill in its current form. He expressed frustration
about the turn of events with the addition of Amendment 3.
Vice-Chair Stoltze noted that it is important to clean
sunsets up.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was adopted.
1:55:46 PM
JOHN WALSH, LOBBYIST, ALASKA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION,
asked if Amendment 3 amends the bill as previously amended
by Amendment 1. Representative Hawker responded that
Amendment 3 amends Version Y, the Labor and Commerce CS.
Representative Foster moved to report CSHB 123 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 123 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with fiscal impact note
#1 by the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.
1:59:10 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to a credit for certain exploration
expenses against oil and gas properties production
taxes on oil and gas produced from a lease or property
in the state; relating to the deadline for certain
exploration expenditures used as credits against
production tax on oil and gas produced from a lease or
property in the Alaska Peninsula competitive oil and
gas areawide lease sale area after July 1, 2004; and
providing for an effective date."
WILLIAM CORBUS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
related:
House Bill 71 extends from July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2010
the deadline for making qualified exploration
expenditures under new AS 43.55.025 (passed in 2003) in
the Bristol Bay area. Leases in the Bristol Bay
(Alaska Peninsula) Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale
are not expected to be issued prior to the spring of
2006. Production expenditures on these leases thus
will most likely be made after July 1, 2007 and will
not qualify for tax credits under the current law.
House Bill 71 is intended to encourage exploration and
development of one of the largest undeveloped onshore
oil and gas fields remaining in Alaska outside of the
North Slope. Development of this field has the
potential to bring stable, high paying, year round jobs
to an area which has traditionally relied on a seasonal
commercial fishing economy. Gas from this field can
provide an efficient relatively low cost energy source
for heating and the production of electricity to the
Alaska Peninsula area. Oil and gas development can
provide transportation infrastructure and lower the
cost of living in this area. Local residents and
commercial interests, including native corporations in
the Alaska Peninsula area support development of the
gas and oil resources in this area. Under the terms of
the lease sale, any development of oil and gas under
state waters within the three-mile limit would have to
be done by directional drilling from onshore.
Three changes were made to HB 71 in the House Resources
Committee substitute:
1. A change to HB 71 was added in the House Resources
Committee to extend the exploration tax credit to wells
drilled in the Nenana Basin through July 1, 2008. The
Administration supports this amendment.
2. A second change added in the Resources Committee
substitute eliminates the exploration tax credit for
exploration in ANWR.
3. The third change added in House Resources eliminates
the exploration tax credit for certain wells that might
be considered delineation wells under the current law.
The Administration does not support this change to
existing tax policy. The idea behind the original bill
was if an explorer was going to push the boundaries of
the area under production out 25 miles, then the state
would underwrite the well work associated with that
exploration, even to the extent of figuring out how
much production is there. All the other limits -of
kinds of expense and when the work has to be done still
exist. We think that was good idea then, we think it's
a good idea now and if explorers thought it was a good
idea, we shouldn't change the law now. These companies
have made and are making decisions based on a law that
was to be in effect from July 1, 2004 to July 1, 2007
it would be inappropriate to make changes to that law
at this time.
2:04:20 PM
Representative Hawker asked which change was not endorsed.
Commissioner Corbus deferred to Dan Dickinson.
2:05:01 PM
DAN DICKINSON, DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, (via teleconference) responded that the tax policy
change made in the House Resources CS, which the
Administration is not endorsing, changed the requirements
and limitations on which wells might or might not qualify
for the last two years of the four years from which this tax
credit can apply.
Representative Hawker asked for clarification on the
language at issue.
Mr. Dickinson replied the language is found in Section 1,
lines 7-10 (new subsection 3), Section 3, 4 and 5. Under
the current legislation, a 20 percent credit is set up if an
exploration well is drilled more than 3 miles from an
existing well. There is also a 20 percent credit if an
exploration well is more than 25 miles from a unit boundary,
as it existed on the date in the bill. If a company
qualifies for both credits, then a 40 percent credit is
possible. The CS does not allow for credit for wells that
are less than 3 miles from a prior well, but more than 25
miles from a leased boundary. He gave an example.
2:09:30 PM
Representative Hawker inquired about the rational behind the
change. Mr. Dickinson replied that once hydrocarbons have
been found, the thought is that the state should stop
subsidizing and not allow any more dollars for the credit.
If the boundaries are pushed out, the credit is then earned.
The issue is how far the boundaries can be extended and
still qualify for credit.
Representative Hawker asked if there could be one or two
wells in proximity to each other as part of an initial
exploratory find, or if that is prohibited.
Mr. Dickinson replied that the new language would prohibit
that situation. HB 61 created a credit in the income tax
for certain exploration and development work in the Cook
Inlet. It is appropriate at times to issue a credit
pertinent to the activity needed to get additional
production, which is the goal. Representative Hawker noted
that the line is clear in this CS between exploration
drilling and development drilling.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if Mr. Dickinson agreed with
Representative Hawker. He replied that the definitions are
based on the location of the well.
2:13:13 PM
Representative Weyhrauch noted on page 2, line 6, in Version
S, the word "or" appears. He recalled that the Ways and
Means version had the word "and". He asked if this is a
change. Mr. Dickinson thought the wording should say "and".
He clarified that the Resource Committee set up three
situations in subsections 1, 2, and 3.
2:16:26 PM
Representative Weyhrauch referred to Section 4 and asked
whether outer boundaries that have not been delineated by
the required date might prevent eligibility. Mr. Dickinson
explained that the lack of a unit boundary would still
qualify a new well in the Bristol Bay extension area for the
20 percent credit. Mr. Dickinson recalled that if the
boundary had not been delineated, you did not qualify.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS explained that is a policy call
about the second well. In response to the question about
"and" and "or", he explained that the Resources Committee
switched from "and" to "or" because it didn't want anyone
receiving an 80 percent credit. He opined that the wording
still needs clarification. He shared discussions that
happened in the Resources Committee Meeting.
2:21:26 PM
Representative Holm asked about the rationale for only
allowing one well.
Representative Samuels explained the thinking behind the
decision. The idea was not to give credit for exploration
on a known property.
Mr. Dickinson strongly urged that the committee adopt HB 71
be adopted with the additional conceptual language changes.
2:23:43 PM
MITCH USIBELLI, MANAGER, USIBELLI ENERGY, NENANA, related
that his company is involved in two projects, Nenana Basin
and Healy Basin. He referred to handouts on each project
(copy on file.) He shared the history of the Nenana Basin
project and explained the maps in the handout. He termed
this project an exciting, yet high-risk frontier
exploration. He highlighted the summary sheet of
Exploration Incentive Credit Programs. He noted that the
sunset date on the project is 2007.
2:30:33 PM
Mr. Usibelli described the history of the second project,
the proposed Healy Basin exploration license. He spoke of
projects delays. He described the maps in the handout. He
noted that this project is a gas-only project, for coalbed
methane and shallow gas exploration. The coalbed methane
industry has grown rapidly and the Department of Energy's
forecast is for the production of non-conventional gas to
increase. He reviewed the summary sheet on Healy
Exploration License Application and discussed the current
timeline.
2:35:40 PM
In response to a question from Co-Chair Meyer, Mr. Usibelli
replied that he thinks that this tax system works.
Representative Holm asked how long before data will be
available on the projects. Mr. Usibelli replied that his
company is processing that data now and will know more over
next two to three months, by mid-summer.
In response to a question from Representative Kelly, Mr.
Usibelli replied that both areas' wells would be outside of
the 25-mile and 3-mile limits. He added that if well is
over the 30 years old the limit does not apply.
2:39:05 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked how this tax incentive is going to
affect his company's coalbed methane, and oil and gas,
exploration. Mr. Usibelli replied that initial exploration
work would qualify for this tax credit. Co-Chair Chenault
referred to the Healy Basin and asked about its size in
relation to the tax incentive. Mr. Usibelli said it is his
understanding that the area falls outside of the 25-mile
limit. He explained that there is plenty of opportunity for
exploration there.
2:41:55 PM
Co-Chair Meyer suggested that a new CS be written
incorporating potential amendments. He asked for
information about Cook Inlet drilling. Mr. Dickinson
reported that AS 43.55.025. applies to any gas or oil
exploration drilling in the state and creates a four-year
window. This bill expands the window for specific areas at
the request of the Governor.
2:44:25 PM
Representative Kelly suggested finding middle ground between
the extremes of opinion surrounding this bill. He noted
that he feels under-informed about the bill. Mr. Dickinson
offered to provide additional information. He related that
Representative Samuels summed it up earlier.
Co-Chair Chenault noted that the mile limits need to be
addressed and that he would be offering amendments.
2:48:56 PM
Mr. Dickinson summarized that the intent is to push the
boundaries of exploration. The Cook Inlet would only be
able to move south. A lot of activity would be excluded
that would otherwise qualify.
2:50:12 PM
Representative Kelly asked for clarification on the
department's position. Mr. Dickinson observed that there
were several changes made. The department has no problem
with the extension to the Nenana Basin. There is only one
aspect that the department objects to.
HB 71 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
2:51:19 PM
At ease.
3:03:56 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act relating to crimes and dangerous instruments."
3:04:19 PM
Representative Hawker, sponsor, explained that the idea for
the bill was brought to him by an expert forensics nurse,
Ms. Tara Henry. The crime of strangulation is currently
prosecuted as a misdemeanor. The bill would change that to
make strangulation a felony, a serious life-threatening
assault. The Department of Law, the Public Safety Employee
Association, police departments, the Alaska State Troopers,
the domestic violence prevention community, and the
forensics community support this bill. HB 219 has zero
fiscal impact notes, except for the Public Defender Agency
indeterminate note.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the bill could adversely affect
a Good Samaritan or someone performing CPR. Representative
Hawker added that another possible concern is about a
strangling occurred in self-defense. He opined that the
bill does not compromise any other area within criminal law.
He shared a story about law enforcement training, which is
no longer allowed to use chokeholds.
Representative Kelly asked about this law as it applies in
other states. Representative Hawker noted that is a popular
issue in other states.
3:10:49 PM
TARA HENRY, SEXUAL ABUSE NURSE EXAMINER (SANE), ANCHORAGE,
(via teleconference) related that she is forensic nurse who
provides expert testimony on assaults, including
strangulation. Strangulation is commonly used in domestic
violence assaults. She explained the physics of
strangulation and the lack of visible symptoms. She urged
the passage of HB 219 so that these cases can be prosecuted
as felonies. She listed other states that have, or are in
the process of having, strangulation bills.
3:15:21 PM
Representative Croft inquired if the problem is difficulty
in proving the crime. Ms. Henry explained that one problem
is that a medical expert is needed to testify in these
cases. Also, a jury is often unable to see physical
evidence in this crime.
TAMARA DELUCIA, OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS, ANCHORAGE, (via
teleconference) related that strangulation is under
prosecuted. She elaborated upon the physical symptoms of
strangulation, some which lead to brain death. The bill
would not require the prosecutor to show physical injury in
order to charge the felony conduct. She shared that Alaska
ranks number one in the nation for domestic violence death,
many of which are a result of strangulation. She strongly
urged support of HB 219.
3:20:31 PM
Representative Hawker spoke to the fiscal notes. He
disagreed with the Public Defender Agency's indeterminate
fiscal note, saying that it should be a zero note.
Co-Chair Chenault opined that there would be increased court
costs if strangulation is changed from a misdemeanor to a
felony. He added that he would not oppose the zero note.
Representative Weyhrauch agreed with Co-Chair Chenault and
asked what happens when it does cost more. Representative
Hawker explained the difference between an indeterminate
note and a zero note. Co-Chair Meyer said that
indeterminate notes are counted as zero notes for budgeting
purposes.
Representative Weyhrauch asked about the dates on the notes.
Co-Chair Meyer explained that the proposed fiscal note would
be a zero note.
3:27:41 PM
Representative Holm wondered if there is an increase in
trial court costs due to felony trials.
Representative Hawker spoke in favor of the zero note.
Representative Kelly wondered if the change from a
misdemeanor to a felony would be easier, yet riskier, to
prosecute.
3:30:08 PM
LINDA WILSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, (via teleconference) responded
that the indeterminate fiscal note is appropriate. Felonies
are much more costly to prosecute, even though some domestic
violence charges may be handled by the city. She predicted
that there would be more felony prosecutions and a fiscal
impact.
Representative Hawker said that the crime of strangulation
is already a felony and this bill would not change that, but
activities may be realigned within the legal process. He
indicated that it works out to be a zero sum gain within the
individual organizations.
3:33:58 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked how many more case are anticipated.
Ms. Wilson replied she could not guess that number.
Co-Chair Meyer accepted the new zero fiscal note.
3:35:54 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "crimes and dangerous instruments"
Insert "the definition of 'dangerous instrument' as
applied within the criminal code"
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Hawker explained that the amendment would
tighten up the title to include hands as a dangerous
instrument.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:37:24 PM
Representative Croft indicated that he expected to find
strangulation described under the definition of serious
physical injury. He wondered why it fell under the
dangerous instruments category.
Representative Hawker explained that was the original
approach to the bill, but legislative legal and the
Department of Law agreed it would be too wide of a
definition. The House Judiciary Committee determined that
it is a tight, but not overriding bill. The current
language is a precise, targeted, and effective way of
accomplishing the intention of the bill.
Representative Croft asked for the Public Defender's opinion
whether it is cleaner in the dangerous instrument definition
or in the serious physical definition. Ms. Wilson responded
that Representative Croft might be confusing deadly weapons
with dangerous instruments. She opined that it makes more
sense to include it with dangerous instruments.
3:41:30 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to report CSHB 219 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal impact notes. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
CSHB 219 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with three zero fiscal impact
notes: #1 CRT, #2 LAW, #3 DPS, and a new ADM zero fiscal
note.
3:43:03 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to indecent exposure."
Representative Coghill, sponsor, explained that the bill was
a result of an indecent exposure incident where the criminal
was charged with a misdemeanor. HB 91 states that if there
is a second exposure conviction, the crime moves up to a
Class C felony.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if the bill involves exposure
and masturbation. Representative Coghill responded that
pending testimony would help clarify that question. He
explained that if there is a previous conviction of indecent
exposure, a second instance would be a felony.
Representative Weyhrauch asked for more information about a
second incident. Representative Coghill explained the
elements of purposeful, and knowingly committing the crime.
Representative Croft asked if it applies to minors only.
Representative Coghill replied that it does.
3:48:24 PM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, EAGLE RIVER, (via teleconference) spoke of an
exposure incident in Delta Junction involving her two
daughters, ages 2 and 7. Because masturbation was not
involved, the man was charged with a misdemeanor. He had a
history of exposure to children. She termed it a gateway
crime to abuse of children. The bill applies to second-time
incidents with minors under 16.
3:53:36 PM
Representative Croft spoke of his own two children and fears
of something happening to them. He noted that Section 1
clearly talks about exposure in front of a minor. Section 2
needs language added such as "exposure or conduct described
above in front of a minor". Representative Coghill said
that was also his concern. He noted that reckless disregard
would have to be proven. He stated an intention that it say
"for those under 16".
Representative Croft noted he would contact legislative
legal about this issue.
Representative Weyhrauch noted that the prosecution of this
crime would be determined by the child's perceptions and
testimony. He question how innocent behavior could be
safeguarded. Representative Coghill said that's why he went
to AS 11.41.460 to include "knowingly, purposeful act", and
AS 11.41.458, which addresses masturbation.
Representative Kelly asked if the exposer would be listed as
a sex offender. Representative Coghill said yes.
4:01:00 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to report HB 91 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
impact notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 91 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with three zero fiscal impact notes: #1
ADM, #2 LAW, and #3 CRT.
4:02:19 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to establishing a screening, tracking,
and intervention program related to the hearing ability
of newborns and infants; providing an exemption to
licensure as an audiologist for certain persons
performing hearing screening tests; relating to
insurance coverage for newborn and infant hearing
screening; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, sponsor, explained that the bill
is for mandatory screening for hearing loss for newborns, an
investment in the future. The fiscal note is minor,
$30,000, to handle 10,000 live births in Alaska per year.
Hearing loss is the number one congenital birth defect and
it affects 30 to 40 Alaskans per year. The cost of tracking
a child who's hearing loss goes undetected in the first two
to three years of life is about $412,000 per child. The
$30,000 annual fiscal note would protect from a potential
$12 million future liability. Hearing loss is often not
detected until children are between 2 and 3 years old, which
effects their cognitive development. This mandate has been
adopted in 33 other states.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if there are any service
organizations that take on this cause.
Representative Ramras explained that the Quota Club's
mission is to help with hearing issues. Currently children
are not being tracked and there is a need to develop a
statistical base.
4:06:08 PM
DEBBIE GOLDEN, MARCH OF DIMES, ANCHORAGE, (via
teleconference) explained the history and mission of March
of Dimes. Hearing loss is the most common birth disability.
She spoke of the costs and savings of hearing screenings.
Passing HB 109 will assure that all newborns are tested.
COLLEEN CHINN-ACCA, FAIRBANKS, (via teleconference) read a
statement from Sarah Pate urging support for HB 109. She
stressed the effectiveness of early intervention. She spoke
in support of the legislation. She noted that children who
don't hear, miss the early language-learning period. Early
language intervention allows the possibility of cochlear
implants.
4:14:30 PM
LISA OWENS, AUDIOLOGIST, ANCHORAGE, (via teleconference)
spoke in support of the legislation. She stressed the
importance of early intervention. Children under three with
hearing loss show speech delays, and difficulties in reading
and in social interaction. They require more special
resources as children and as adults. Those children who are
identified before the age of three have less need for
support and special programs and have opportunity for
cochlear implants.
4:18:07 PM
In response to a question by Co-Chair Meyer, Ms. Owens
described methods used to test children under three. Tests
can be done by a variety of health care and childcare
professions. She described the testing procedure. Co-Chair
Meyer asked if an ear, nose, and throat specialist would
typically test hearing loss. Ms. Owens replied that a
specialist would need to perform the tests using the new
technology. She explained various types of hearing loss.
MARTIN BEALS, JR., M.D. PEDIATRICIAN, ANCHORAGE, (via
teleconference) testified in support of the legislation. He
noted that early intervention saves costs.
4:23:28 PM
Representative Foster spoke in support of the legislation.
HB 109 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|