Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/21/2007 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB108 | |
| HB7 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 21, 2007
1:42 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:42:02 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Mary Nelson
Representative Bill Thomas, Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Richard Foster
ALSO PRESENT
Eleanor Wolfe, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson; Al Clough,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development, Chairman of the Marine Pilot's Board;
Captain Larry Vose, President of Southeast Pilots
Association; Rick Urion, Director, Division of Occupational
Licensing; Representative Bob Lynn; Dirk Moffatt, Staff,
Representative Bob Lynn
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Clyde (Ed) Sniffen Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Law; Sonia Subani, AARP Alaska; Theresa
Bannister, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services
SUMMARY
HB 108 "An Act extending the termination date for the
Board of Marine Pilots; and providing for an
effective date."
CSHB 108 (L&C) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
by the House Finance Committee for the Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
HB 7 "An Act relating to false caller identification."
CSHB 7 (FIN) was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
1:42:13 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 108
"An Act extending the termination date for the Board of
Marine Pilots; and providing for an effective date."
ELEANOR WOLFE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, explained
that HB 108 extends the Board of Marine Pilots until 2013.
She offered to answer questions.
1:45:14 PM
RICK URION, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING,
observed that the Board of Marine Pilots comes under his
division. He spoke in support of the bill and offered to
answer questions.
1:46:05 PM
AL CLOUGH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF
MARINE PILOTS, stated support for the bill and offered to
answer questions.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if marine pilots only pilot foreign
flag vessels in Alaskan waters. Mr. Clough replied that
foreign flag vessels are required to have a U.S. Marine
Pilot on board; other vessels may choose to have a pilot on
board. Most of the American flag tankers out of Valdez
choose to have a licensed marine pilot.
Representative Stoltze asked if large foreign flag pleasure
craft need a marine pilot. Mr. Clough replied that there is
an exemption for yachts up to 175 feet.
1:48:23 PM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if there is a penalty to the
association or the pilot if the pilot is not enrolled in a
drug testing program. Mr. Clough explained that pilots are
required by the Coast Guard and by state regulation to be
enrolled in such a program. The issues brought out in the
audit were related to record keeping.
Co-Chair Meyer asked what the penalty is if drug testing is
not done. Mr. Clough said it is a requirement and there
currently is no problem with lack of compliance.
1:50:36 PM
Representative Stoltze asked about a requirement for drug
testing for pleasure crafts. Mr. Clough explained that it
is not the state's issue because there is not a pilot on
board. If there were an incident, then the Coast Guard
would respond.
1:51:55 PM
CAPTAIN LARRY VOSE, PRESIDENT OF SOUTHEAST PILOTS
ASSOCIATION, stated support for HB 108. He elaborated on
the previous question regarding U.S. flag vessels. There
are two types of pilots, federal and state. Federal pilots
apply to U.S. flag vessels. The vessels that go to Valdez
have both federal and state pilots on board. All state
pilots have to have a federal pilot license as a
prerequisite. A vessel has to be over 1,600 tons to require
a federal pilot. Regarding the drug testing requirement, it
is a condition of employment and the pilot has to show
evidence of compliance in order to dispatch.
Representative Stoltze asked for a definition of a marine
pilot. Captain Vose related the qualifications for marine
pilots.
1:56:34 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked where the pilots board oil tankers up
north. Captain Vose explained regional boarding procedures.
Representative Joule asked if the pilot associations are
closed and if applicants must receive an invitation to join.
He also wondered about age restrictions. Captain Vose
explained the current competitive process for application to
become a marine pilot. He maintained it is a fair and open
process. Captain Vose noted it takes about seven years to
become a fully licensed pilot.
Co-Chair Chenault asked about state vs. federal pilot limits
in the Gulf of Alaska as they relate to oil spills. Captain
Vose explained that federal pilotage waters are from three
miles out, inward - the United States territorial seas.
State pilotage boundaries are within the inside waters of
the state.
2:03:40 PM
Representative Gara questioned the marine pilot involvement
as it related to the Exxon Valdez. Captain Vose said that
the accident happened after the marine pilot was off the
ship. The pilot station has since been moved seaward. He
spoke of difficulties of providing pilots in all areas and
the safety issues of boarding the ships.
2:06:33 PM
Co-Chair Meyer noted a new fiscal note written by the House
Finance Committee for the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development.
Representative Hawker MOVED to report CSHB 108 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 108 (L&C) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the House
Finance Committee for Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development.
2:07:26 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to false caller identification."
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT the work draft to HB 7,
labeled 25-LS0057\L, Bannister, 2/20/07. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:08:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, sponsor, warned the committee that
the name seen on one's Caller ID may not be the person who
is actually calling. He presented various scenarios of
false information appearing on Caller ID systems. He termed
HB 7 a proactive bill.
2:10:47 PM
DIRK MOFFATT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, explained that
the CS in front of the committee today has changed a lot
from the House Judiciary Committee version. He explained
that the technology to fool Caller ID is not new. A simple
calling card can put false information on a Caller ID
system.
Mr. Moffatt related that HB 7 says if someone makes a false
identification call, attempting to defraud, that person is
guilty of a Class B or a Class A misdemeanor, depending on
how many calls are made.
2:13:05 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked why there are two classes of
misdemeanor. Mr. Moffatt replied that originally it was a
Class B crime, but the addition of Class A addresses someone
who makes many of calls. The number five came from a scheme
to defraud statute.
2:14:08 PM
Representative Crawford spoke in support of the bill.
Representative Gara recalled seeing the bill last session.
He mentioned candidate poll surveys where a candidate's name
is concealed, wondering if the bill addresses that
situation. Representative Lynn replied that the bill
applies to all false Caller ID's. Mr. Moffatt emphasized
that the aim of the bill is at those who attempt to defraud.
Representative Gara asked about research polls. Mr. Moffatt
opined that they are not fraud.
2:16:43 PM
Representative Hawker referred to a memo (February 8, 2007,
Theresa Bannister, Legislative Legal Services) in members'
packets that may raise due process issues. He requested an
explanation of those issues and whether or not they have
been resolved. Mr. Moffatt deferred to Mr. Sniffen and
Terry Bannister to answer that question.
2:17:55 PM
SONIA SUBANI, AARP Alaska, related that older persons are
more vulnerable to telephone fraud. She related a personal
experience of fraudulent Caller ID.
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained the differences between the
various versions of HB 7. He reported that in the Judiciary
Committee the focus was on the definition of a violation and
how to make the crimes specific to the display of
information as it appears on someone's phone. The intention
was to make the bill easier to understand and enforce.
2:23:14 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked how many complaints there have been
regarding this issue. Mr. Sniffen said that there have been
many indirect complaints from victims of identity theft.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if it would be difficult to prove
this as criminal action. He suspected that most would fall
under civil action. Mr. Sniffen replied most would fall
under the civil division rather than the criminal side.
Legal efforts would be focused on the criminal class - Class
A offenses. Co-Chair Meyer asked if Mr. Sniffen was
comfortable having two classes of misdemeanors. Mr. Sniffen
said he could understand the sponsor's logic for having the
two classes. Co-Chair Meyer said he would go along with the
Judiciary Committee's version of the bill.
Representative Lynn noted that the degree of violation was a
concern of the Judiciary Committee.
2:27:40 PM
Representative Crawford asked what the rules currently are
for client identification regarding polls. Mr. Sniffen
related that there are rules regarding telemarketing, but
not for political polls. Intentional deception would be
considered fraud.
Representative Crawford asked if it is a crime if a pollster
gives the impression that a poll is research. Mr. Sniffen
replied that if a reasonable consumer would be misled, then
it would be fraud.
2:30:42 PM
Representative Gara posed a hypothetical situation involving
two political opponents. He wondered if such conduct is
currently allowed. Mr. Sniffen thought that the bill was
directed at more obvious conduct.
2:32:05 PM
Representative Hawker asked if the due process questions
were addressed. Mr. Sniffen replied that one of the issues
was ambiguous language as to the number of calls that would
qualify for Class A and Class B. Representative Hawker
asked Ms. Bannister to reply.
2:33:17 PM
THERESA BANNISTER, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES,
thought work draft version L was fine.
Representative Hawker questioned the meaning of "the call or
other conduct resulting in false information being displayed
to fewer or more than five recipients". He wondered about
multiple calls to the same recipient. Mr. Sniffen thought
that each separate display would be a separate violation.
Ms. Bannister explained that it depends on the type of the
call. Representative Hawker summarized that if one
perpetrator made 10 calls to the same recipient it would be
a Class B misdemeanor - fewer than five recipients. Ms.
Bannister said yes. Representative Hawker asked if that was
the sponsor's intent.
Mr. Sniffen explained the intent was if someone made five
displays on a Caller ID system it would count as a Class A
misdemeanor. Representative Hawker termed that conflicting
testimony. Ms. Bannister suggested the language could be
re-written. Co-Chair Meyer suggested going back to the
original bill.
2:38:12 PM
Representative Lynn replied that he was agreeable to going
back to the original bill, but did not want to undo the work
of the Judiciary Committee. Co-Chair Meyer thought the bill
was confusing as worded. He asked Ms. Bannister if the bill
was returned to "one call, one crime" if any due process
issues would come up.
Ms. Bannister did not believe the original [A] version would
be problematic. Mr. Sniffen clarified that the difficulty
with the K version would be in section (a) "A person may not
knowingly make a call and insert false information into a
caller identification system with the intent to defraud."
It would be hard to determine who inserts the false
information, a person who inputs information into a
computer, or the operator who makes the phone call. The
"caller identification system" is defined in Version K to
mean a listing of a caller's name, telephone number, or name
and telephone number that is shown to a recipient of a call
when the recipient answers. Mr. Sniffen thought that was
confusing and was intended to mean a telephone. Version L
tried to clarify that language. He suggested using Version
L and re-working (c).
Co-Chair Meyer stated his intent to hold the bill over and
to work further with the sponsor on it.
2:43:02 PM
Representative Stoltze referred to the abuse of privacy
provisions related to phones for people with disabilities.
He wondered if that circumstance could be addressed. Mr.
Sniffen was not familiar with federal laws.
2:45:29 PM
Co-Chair Chenault questioned how many cases have occurred in
Alaska. Ms. Subani did not know.
Co-Chair Chenault observed that there were several zero
fiscal notes associated with the legislation, with the
exception of the Department of Public Safety. He pointed
out the lack of a fiscal note from the Department of
Corrections. In response to a hypothetical scenario by Co-
Chair Chenault, Mr. Sniffen agreed it was fraud.
2:49:37 PM
Discussion followed regarding zero and indeterminate fiscal
notes that would result from increased costs. Co-Chair
Chenault suggested that the number of cases would increase
and costs would ensue.
CSHB 7 (FIN) was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:54 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|