Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519

03/22/2011 01:30 PM FINANCE


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ HB 8 FEDERAL REGULATIONS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 10 NONCOMMERCIAL TRAILER REGISTRATION FEE TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 24 EXTEND REGULATORY COMM. OF ALASKA SUNSET TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 24(FIN) Out of Committee
+ HB 64 PERMANENT MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 97 EXTEND INVASIVE PLANTS LAW TELECONFERENCED
Moved Out of Committee
+ HB 105 SOUTHEAST STATE FOREST TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 127 CRIMES INVOLVING MINORS/STALKING/INFO TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
*+ HB 140 APPROP: COMMUNITY QUOTA ENTITY LOAN FUND TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 141 LOANS TO COMMUNITY QUOTA ENTITIES/PERMITS TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 147 BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY SECRETARY TELECONFERENCED
Moved Out of Committee
+ HB 164 INSURANCE: HEALTH CARE & OTHER TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ HB 175 COURT APPEARANCES; ARSON; INFRACTIONS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ SB 76 SUPPLEMENTAL/CAPITAL/OTHER APPROPRIATIONS TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      March 22, 2011                                                                                            
                         1:40 p.m.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:40:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze called the  House Finance Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 1:40 p.m.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair                                                                                           
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair                                                                                        
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair                                                                                      
Representative Mia Costello                                                                                                     
Representative Mike Doogan                                                                                                      
Representative Bryce Edgmon                                                                                                     
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative David Guttenberg                                                                                                 
Representative Reggie Joule                                                                                                     
Representative Tammie Wilson                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Mark Neuman                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
John  J. Burns,  Attorney General,  Department of  Law; Anne                                                                    
Carpeneti,  Assistant   Attorney  General,   Legal  Services                                                                    
Section,  Criminal  Division,   Department  of  Law;  Konrad                                                                    
Jackson,  Staff, Representative  Kurt  Olson; Pat  Davidson,                                                                    
Legislative  Auditor, Division  of Legislative  Audit; Linda                                                                    
Hall,  Director,   Division  of  Insurance,   Department  of                                                                    
Commerce,  Community  and   Economic  Development;  Jennifer                                                                    
Senette,  Staff, Representative  Kurt Olson;  Jeanne Ostnes,                                                                    
Staff, Representative Craig Johnson.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Bob  Pickett,  Chairman,  Regulatory Commission  of  Alaska;                                                                    
Steve  Stephan, Director  of Government  Relations, National                                                                    
Association   Professional   Surplus  Lines   Office;   Dale                                                                    
Fosselman,  Senior  Vice President,  Corporate  Development,                                                                    
Denali Alaskan  Federal Credit  Union, Wasilla;  Don Rulien,                                                                    
Certified   Public   Accountant  and   Member,   Legislative                                                                    
Committee, Alaska  Society of Certified  Public Accountants,                                                                    
Anchorage.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SUMMARY                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 8      FEDERAL REGULATIONS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          HB 8 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HB 10     NONCOMMERCIAL TRAILER REGISTRATION FEE                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          HB 10 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 24     EXTEND REGULATORY COMM. OF ALASKA SUNSET                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
          CSHB 24(FIN) was REPORTED out  of Committee with a                                                                    
          "do  pass" recommendation  and  with attached  new                                                                    
          fiscal  note by  the House  Finance Committee  for                                                                    
          the   Department   of  Commerce,   Community   and                                                                    
          Economic Development.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HB 64     PERMANENT MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          HB 64 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 97     EXTEND INVASIVE PLANTS LAW                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          HB 97  was REPORTED  out of  Committee with  a "do                                                                    
          pass" recommendation and  with attached previously                                                                    
          published fiscal note: FN 1 (DNR).                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 105    SOUTHEAST STATE FOREST                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          HB 105 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 127    CRIMES INVOLVING MINORS/STALKING/INFO                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          HB  127  was  HEARD  and  HELD  in  committee  for                                                                    
          further consideration.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 140    APPROP: COMMUNITY QUOTA ENTITY LOAN FUND                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
          HB 140 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 141    LOANS TO COMMUNITY QUOTA ENTITIES/PERMITS                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          HB 141 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 147    BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY SECRETARY                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          HB 147 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do                                                                       
          pass"    recommendation   and    with   previously                                                                    
          published fiscal note: FN 1 (CED).                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 164    INSURANCE:  HEALTH CARE & OTHER                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          HB 164 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 175    COURT APPEARANCES; ARSON; INFRACTIONS                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          HB 175 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SB 76     SUPPLEMENTAL/CAPITAL/OTHER APPROPRIATIONS                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          SB 76 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  noted  that   some  of  the  committee                                                                    
members wanted  to speak to  Commissioner Bryan  Butcher and                                                                    
the  Department of  Natural Resources  about royalty  relief                                                                    
provisions (connected with House Bill 110).                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze responded that the committee would attempt                                                                     
to fit the requested presenters in.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 127                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act relating  to the  crimes  of stalking,  online                                                                    
     enticement  of  a  minor, unlawful  exploitation  of  a                                                                    
     minor, endangering  the welfare of a  child, sending an                                                                    
     explicit image of a  minor, harassment, distribution of                                                                    
     indecent material  to minors, and  misconduct involving                                                                    
     confidential  information; relating  to probation;  and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:42:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that his intent was not to report                                                                        
the crime bills [HB 127 and HB 175] out that day, but to                                                                        
begin an in-depth discussion about them.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  J.   BURNS,  ATTORNEY  GENERAL,  DEPARTMENT   OF  LAW,                                                                    
testified in favor of both HB  127 and HB 175. He noted that                                                                    
HB  175  was a  housekeeping  bill  that would  clarify  and                                                                    
correct statutory revisions made the prior year.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Attorney  General  Burns  informed the  committee  that  the                                                                    
focus of HB 127 (as proposed  by the governor) was to expand                                                                    
the  crimes   of  stalking  and  misconduct   involving  the                                                                    
acquisition  and  misuse  of  confidential  information;  it                                                                    
would  expand the  scope of  crimes  associated with  online                                                                    
enticement and exploitation of minors.  He asserted that the                                                                    
state was  firmly focused on  ending the epidemic  of sexual                                                                    
assault  and  domestic  violence   that  had  been  plaguing                                                                    
Alaskan communities. He reviewed statistics:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
   · The incidence of sexual abuse among Alaskan children                                                                       
     was six times the national average.                                                                                        
   · Alaskan women were raped two-and-one-half times more                                                                       
     often than the national average.                                                                                           
   · 60 percent of Alaskan women had been physically or                                                                         
     sexually assaulted or seriously threatened with                                                                            
     assault.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Attorney General Burns explained that  HB 127 had been built                                                                    
on  legislation implemented  the  prior  year, and  proposed                                                                    
important changes  that would  further protect  victims from                                                                    
exploitation  and  assault.  In  addition  to  amending  and                                                                    
clarifying  aspects  of  existing  statutes,  HB  127  would                                                                    
expand the crime  of stalking by amending  the definition of                                                                    
"non-consensual  contact"  and make  it  a  crime to  use  a                                                                    
global positioning system (GPS)  device to follow or monitor                                                                    
a victim,  or to  install or attempt  to install  devices to                                                                    
observe,  record,  or  photograph events  occurring  in  the                                                                    
home, workplace,  or vehicle of  a victim, or on  a victim's                                                                    
personal telephone or computer.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:45:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Attorney   General   Burns   continued  that   the   amended                                                                    
definition reflected  the reality of current  technology and                                                                    
the illicit uses  to which it was being  applied. House Bill                                                                    
127 would  also make  it a crime  to distribute  an explicit                                                                    
image  of  a  minor  and   to  knowingly  obtain  or  misuse                                                                    
confidential information about  another person without legal                                                                    
authority  or  consent.  Finally,  in  addition  to  various                                                                    
amendments  and sentencing  reclassifications, HB  127 would                                                                    
improve  upon  law  enacted  the prior  year  to  allow  the                                                                    
attorney  general (or  the attorney  general's designee)  to                                                                    
issue administrative subpoenas  to law enforcement officials                                                                    
to  obtain limited  information  from  an internet  services                                                                    
provider (ISP) if  there was probable cause  to believe that                                                                    
an  internet service  account was  being used  in connection                                                                    
with  the  crimes  of  the online  enticement  of  a  minor,                                                                    
unlawful  exploitation of  a minor,  or the  distribution or                                                                    
possession of child pornography.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Attorney General  Burns concluded  that the objective  of HB                                                                    
127 was consistent with efforts  to eradicate sexual assault                                                                    
and domestic  violence in  Alaska. He  urged support  of the                                                                    
legislation.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Guttenberg   queried   the   administrative                                                                    
subpoena  for an  internet service  provider.  He asked  how                                                                    
providers from outside Alaska would be dealt with.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Attorney  General  Burns  replied  that the  intent  of  the                                                                    
proposal  was  to allow  the  service  of an  administrative                                                                    
subpoena  either  as  currently   lawfully  provided  or  as                                                                    
acceptable  to the  internet service  provider, in  order to                                                                    
facilitate  the  process  of  service.  Currently,  the  law                                                                    
related   to  an   administrative   subpoena  provided   for                                                                    
signature only by the attorney  general, and the service had                                                                    
to be  either through certified  mail or by  process server.                                                                    
House   Bill   127   would   facilitate   the   service   of                                                                    
administrative subpoenas through other, additional means.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg  summarized   that  the  subpoena                                                                    
would only be serviceable by mutual consent.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Attorney General  Burns replied  that the subpoena  would be                                                                    
allowed as authorized by law or through mutual consent.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:48:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson questioned  the  fiscal notes,  which                                                                    
she  pointed out  were indeterminate  or zero.  She wondered                                                                    
whether  there were  statistics about  who would  fall under                                                                    
the categories.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI,  ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,  LEGAL SERVICES                                                                    
SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT  OF LAW, replied that                                                                    
she assumed  the question  related to  the expansion  of the                                                                    
definition  of  non-consensual  contact,  or  stalking.  She                                                                    
stated   that  there   were  no   statistics,  because   the                                                                    
activities  were not  currently against  the law.  She added                                                                    
that  there was  information from  other jurisdictions  that                                                                    
the described  acts had been  done by stalkers.  She pointed                                                                    
out  that to  convict  someone  of stalking,  it  had to  be                                                                    
proven  beyond a  reasonable doubt  that the  accused person                                                                    
committed  the  acts  of  non-consensual  contact  with  the                                                                    
intent to terrorize the victim or  to put the victim in fear                                                                    
of  death or  physical injury.  The legislation  contained a                                                                    
definition  of non-consensual  contact and  what that  would                                                                    
include.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson asked  whether there  were statistics                                                                    
from other states with the laws already in place.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti responded  that she was not  familiar with the                                                                    
statistics, but offered to look for more information.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson acknowledged  that there  was a  need                                                                    
for  the  definition.  She thought  zero  and  indeterminate                                                                    
fiscal  notes  made  it  hard  to  calculate  the  financial                                                                    
impact.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the  state did not anticipate a                                                                    
large number of cases, but  wanted the statute to be changed                                                                    
so that there  would be provisions to  address the situation                                                                    
if it came up.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Costello   believed  that  the   bill  would                                                                    
prohibit  graphic texting,  regardless  of  whether a  minor                                                                    
initiated the action or forwarded something.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Attorney General Burns responded that she was correct.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Costello  noted that  the bill  would clarify                                                                    
that a child under  the age of 16 years of  age could not be                                                                    
left alone  with a  person who  had to  register as  a child                                                                    
kidnapper.  She  asked  whether the  law  already  addressed                                                                    
those who had to register as sex offenders.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:52:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Carpeneti  responded that  the  item  was considered  a                                                                    
housekeeping  amendment;  the  statute prohibited  a  parent                                                                    
from leaving  a child under  16 years  of age with  a person                                                                    
who was  required to  register as a  sex offender;  for some                                                                    
reason, it  did not  include people who  had to  register as                                                                    
child kidnappers.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan  queried   how  harassment  would  be                                                                    
applied by the bill.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti answered that the  amendment to the harassment                                                                    
statute  in HB  127 was  only conforming,  to make  it clear                                                                    
that the  "sexting" provision  (created in  another section)                                                                    
was not duplicative in the harassment section.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze queried the word "sexting."                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti  replied that  the word was  not in  the bill,                                                                    
but was in common usage.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan asked  how  the  issue of  misconduct                                                                    
involving confidential  information would be applied  in the                                                                    
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the item would be a new crime.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan queried the issue of probation.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti  answered that  current statute  required that                                                                    
the  Department  of  Corrections  (DOC)  provided  qualified                                                                    
probation  officers to  the superior  court. She  added that                                                                    
superior  court meant  felony  crimes. Historically,  Alaska                                                                    
had never  had probation  officers for  supervised probation                                                                    
for misdemeanants, primarily because  it would be enormously                                                                    
expensive. However,  there had been an  experimental program                                                                    
tried by  a group of  people in the criminal  justice system                                                                    
(the   PACE   [Probationer   Accountability   with   Certain                                                                    
Enforcement]  program);  a  discreet  group  of  misdemeanor                                                                    
defendants were  stringently supervised during  probation to                                                                    
ascertain  what difference  could  be made.  House Bill  127                                                                    
would  clarify that  courts  would not  be  able to  appoint                                                                    
probation  officers   to  every  misdemeanant,   unless  the                                                                    
commissioner of DOC agreed.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Gara    expressed   concerns    about   the                                                                    
administrative subpoena.  He pointed out  that historically,                                                                    
a subpoena could only be issued  by a court; the prior year,                                                                    
legislative authority  had been given to  allow the attorney                                                                    
general to  issue some subpoenas.  He asked what  form would                                                                    
have to  be used  so that  the defendant  knew they  got the                                                                    
subpoena and had the time to challenge its validity.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti replied that at  the current time, there would                                                                    
not be a  defendant to notify. She referred  to testimony by                                                                    
Sgt. DeGraff the prior year  related to investigations based                                                                    
on  probable cause  that a  particular internet  account was                                                                    
being used to perpetrate  child pornography crimes or online                                                                    
enticement of a minor. The  bill would allow law enforcement                                                                    
to  obtain information  about the  account from  an internet                                                                    
service  provider; the  administrative subpoenas  would only                                                                    
go to  internet service providers,  so there would not  be a                                                                    
defendant at that point.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:57:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  summarized that  the person  gone after                                                                    
would not know.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti responded that he  was correct. She added that                                                                    
there would be  limited information about an  identity; at a                                                                    
certain point,  the defendant  would have  the right  to get                                                                    
the information, if there were criminal charges.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara asked  why the  state could  not simply                                                                    
rely  on the  courts  to determine  whether  a subpoena  was                                                                    
valid.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Carpeneti replied  that crimes  involving computer  and                                                                    
internet  use  and  involving child  and  pornography  moved                                                                    
swiftly; the  information had to  be obtained as  quickly as                                                                    
possible in  order to isolate  the computer being  used. The                                                                    
alternative  was  to  go  to  the judge  and  get  a  search                                                                    
warrant,  but  for  a  quicker  investigation  with  limited                                                                    
information. She  noted the  provision was  the same  as the                                                                    
one  passed the  previous  legislative session  to find  out                                                                    
where the computer was.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze observed that the  stakes were high for the                                                                    
children involved.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough  asked  whether  the  bill  could  be                                                                    
applied  to the  activities of  the Transportation  Security                                                                    
Agency  (TSA).  She referred  to  concerns  that the  images                                                                    
taken in  airports could be used  as inappropriate material.                                                                    
She believed pat-down procedures  were being conducted at an                                                                    
unnecessary  rate and  raised questions  about inappropriate                                                                    
touching.  She  wanted  to fight  for  Alaskans'  rights  to                                                                    
privacy.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Burns  responded that  issues relative  to the  TSA were                                                                    
being evaluated.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:02:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Edgmon thanked the  governor for his emphasis                                                                    
on the issue represented in HB  127. He referred to the bill                                                                    
heard  earlier  during  the  session  related  to  synthetic                                                                    
marijuana. He wondered about rural  Alaska and getting ahead                                                                    
of the technology curve with the legislation.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Burns responded  that the department was  trying to keep                                                                    
up with  the technology; he  thought the present use  of the                                                                    
internet for  the described uses was  "appalling." He stated                                                                    
that  HB  127  intended  to  achieve  the  ability  for  law                                                                    
enforcement   to   intercept  through   the   administrative                                                                    
subpoena process; it would not  take the place of a warrant,                                                                    
but would allow law enforcement to hone in on the activity.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Edgmon remarked  that  GPS  units were  used                                                                    
throughout  the state.  He wondered  whether the  GPS device                                                                    
would have state application.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Burns responded in the affirmative.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms.   Carpeneti  commented   that  the   additions  to   the                                                                    
definition  of  non-consensual  contact  were  part  of  the                                                                    
stalking  statute, which  provided that  a person  committed                                                                    
the crime if  they recklessly placed another  person in fear                                                                    
of  death or  physical injury  by  engaging in  a course  of                                                                    
conduct that  reasonably frightened  them. The  proposed new                                                                    
ways of  contacting a person  would be in addition  to those                                                                    
already stipulated in statute.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough   remarked  that  victims   of  rape,                                                                    
incest,  or child  abuse felt  the  same as  those who  were                                                                    
patted  down  by  the  agents  of  the  TSA.  She  expressed                                                                    
frustration.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg asked how  an individual ISP could                                                                    
be  focused on  in public  places that  had many  computers,                                                                    
such  as  internet  cafes.   He  described  experience  with                                                                    
wireless routers.  He wondered  whether there  was something                                                                    
in the bill that would help focus on a perpetrator.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:08:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze  pointed  out  that there  would  be  more                                                                    
details when the American Civil  Liberties Union (ACLU) took                                                                    
the state to court.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara pointed  to a provision on  page 3, line                                                                    
24 and  wondered whether  an amendment  would be  needed. He                                                                    
noted that the  provision related to "sexting"  was aimed at                                                                    
preventing abuse of  people under 16 years of  age, and that                                                                    
certain body parts (which he  would not read into the record                                                                    
as they sounded bad) applied.  However, the bill did not say                                                                    
that  the body  parts had  to be  uncovered. He  queried the                                                                    
intent.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Carpeneti replied  that  the terms  were  used in  many                                                                    
places in  Title 11;  the intent  related to  unclothed body                                                                    
parts.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  asked whether  it was  written anywhere                                                                    
in the statutes  that the body parts had to  be unclothed in                                                                    
order  to  prosecute  someone. He  asked  whether  the  word                                                                    
"genitals" was defined in relation with being uncovered.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti  answered that  the issue  had never  come up;                                                                    
she assumed the meaning was unclothed.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara expressed  discomfort with the language;                                                                    
he wanted more  than intent. He did not want  a person to be                                                                    
prosecuted  for  texting  clothed  body parts.  He  was  not                                                                    
convinced that  the language  in the  bill was  clear enough                                                                    
and questioned the need for an amendment.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:11:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Carpeneti responded  that the  item was  defined as  an                                                                    
explicit image. She thought a  court decision addressing the                                                                    
issue could be  found. She added that the intent  was not to                                                                    
prohibit sending pictures of clothed people.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough  opined that  people could  be clothed                                                                    
and  the image  could  still be  explicit.  She thought  the                                                                    
current  language  had  been sufficient  in  the  past.  She                                                                    
pointed out that people could  dress children up in sexually                                                                    
provocative  ways before  creating inappropriately  explicit                                                                    
images.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough believed  Representative Gara's intent                                                                    
had been  put into the record.  She thought it was  right to                                                                    
point  out  there  could  still  be  a  violation  with  the                                                                    
presence of clothing.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan  believed  the   bill  would  do  two                                                                    
things: raise  the classification in three  cases from Class                                                                    
B to  Class C  felonies, and  insert a  few new  crimes that                                                                    
were Class B felonies. He  asked why the penalties needed to                                                                    
be increased in the first cases.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti  believed there  had been  a misunderstanding;                                                                    
the new  crimes added  were misdemeanors, not  felonies. The                                                                    
bill would raise  the crime of online enticement  of a minor                                                                    
(currently a  Class C felony  for most  first-time offenders                                                                    
and a Class B felony  for sex offenders or child kidnappers)                                                                    
up one  level. The rationale  was that the crimes  were very                                                                    
serious and caused enormous harm to children.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Carpeneti  continued that  the  crime  of the  unlawful                                                                    
exploitation of  a minor (the creation  of child pornography                                                                    
using children) would be raised to  a Class B felony for all                                                                    
offenders;  under  current law,  the  crime  was a  Class  B                                                                    
felony for  the first  offense and  a Class  A felony  for a                                                                    
second  conviction of  the offense.  The  rationale for  the                                                                    
increase was the seriousness of the conduct.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:16:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan pointed to  Section 9 of the sectional                                                                    
analysis, which he thought communicated  that the bill would                                                                    
create a new crime that was a Class B felony.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.   Carpeneti  replied   that  Section   9  would   create                                                                    
misconduct involving  confidential information in  the first                                                                    
and second degree (Class A and Class B misdemeanors).                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan referred to  the sections in which the                                                                    
felony  level  would be  raised  up  and asked  whether  the                                                                    
levels had been set the previous session.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti replied that the  particular crimes and levels                                                                    
had  not  been created  recently.  She  added that  unlawful                                                                    
exploitation of a  minor was created when  the criminal code                                                                    
was created  in 1978  and had been  enacted in  1980; online                                                                    
enticement of a minor was enacted in the early 2000s.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB  127  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 175                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act relating  to an  appearance before  a judicial                                                                    
     officer  after   arrest;  relating  to   penalties  for                                                                    
     operating a  vehicle without possessing proof  of motor                                                                    
     vehicle  liability  insurance  or a  driver's  license;                                                                    
     relating  to  penalties  for  certain  arson  offenses;                                                                    
     amending  Rule   5(a)(1),  Alaska  Rules   of  Criminal                                                                    
     Procedure,   and   Rule    43.10,   Alaska   Rules   of                                                                    
     Administration; and providing for an effective date."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:18:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  J.   BURNS,  ATTORNEY  GENERAL,  DEPARTMENT   OF  LAW,                                                                    
explained    that   HB    175   would    provide   statutory                                                                    
clarifications.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI,  ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,  LEGAL SERVICES                                                                    
SECTION,  CRIMINAL  DIVISION,  DEPARTMENT OF  LAW,  provided                                                                    
details about  the legislation. House  Bill 175  would solve                                                                    
four  inconsistencies  between  the   court  rules  and  the                                                                    
statutes. She  explained that  three of  the inconsistencies                                                                    
had been  created over  the years  with statutes  enacted in                                                                    
one   year   and   later    changed;   she   took   personal                                                                    
responsibility for  the fourth one, which  resulted from the                                                                    
comprehensive updating  and revision  of bail  statutes that                                                                    
was passed the  year prior. There was one  mistake: the bill                                                                    
changed the  deadline before which  a person arrested  for a                                                                    
crime had  to be brought  before a judicial officer  from 24                                                                    
hours to  48 hours.  She added that  the law  still provided                                                                    
that  a person  arrested had  to be  brought in  front of  a                                                                    
judicial officer  without unnecessary delay;  however, there                                                                    
were cases in  which 48 hours was much  more practical, such                                                                    
as arrests made in the  early-morning hours. There were also                                                                    
cases in  which it was  not possible  to find the  victim in                                                                    
time to provide notification of the arraignment.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Carpeneti  noted  that the  issue  had  been  discussed                                                                    
extensively  the previous  year.  The court  rules had  been                                                                    
changed (at  the department's  suggestion), but  the statute                                                                    
had not been  brought before the legislature  to be changed.                                                                    
She detailed  that HB  175 would change  the statute  in the                                                                    
arrest law and in the extradition law.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms.   Carpeneti   reviewed   the  first   of   three   other                                                                    
inconsistencies  that  would be  addressed  by  HB 175.  She                                                                    
detailed  that  there  was an  inconsistency  regarding  the                                                                    
penalty  for  failing  to  carry  a  driver's  license  when                                                                    
operating  an  automobile;  it   was  currently  a  Class  B                                                                    
misdemeanor,  but  under the  bail  schedules  in the  court                                                                    
rules,  it   was  also  a   $50  correctable   offense.  The                                                                    
legislation would  make the  offense of  failing to  carry a                                                                    
driver's  license  an  infraction  rather  than  a  Class  B                                                                    
misdemeanor.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti reviewed the second  inconsistency in the law,                                                                    
related to  failure to carry  proof of  automobile insurance                                                                    
while driving.  Under Title  28, the offense  was a  Class B                                                                    
misdemeanor;  it  was  also  on  the  bail  schedules  as  a                                                                    
correctable offense  with a mandatory fine  of $500 dollars.                                                                    
House Bill 175 would make  the activity an infraction with a                                                                    
mandatory fine  of $500 dollars  for failure to  carry proof                                                                    
of insurance,  but it would  be correctable; a  person could                                                                    
bring proof  of insurance to  the police department  and the                                                                    
offense would be dismissed.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti  reviewed a  [third] inconsistency  related to                                                                    
the arson  law. In  2006, the  legislature created  the Knik                                                                    
River Public  Use Area. The Department  of Natural Resources                                                                    
was  asked to  adopt  regulations regarding  conduct in  the                                                                    
area,  and required  the court  system to  establish a  bail                                                                    
schedule for the  offenses. One of the  offenses was burning                                                                    
a vehicle in  the public use area, which carried  a $50 fine                                                                    
in the bail  schedule. Two years later  in 2008, legislation                                                                    
was adopted making  the offense of burning a  vehicle on any                                                                    
public  property   a  Class  C  felony.   Therefore  it  was                                                                    
currently  a Class  C felony  to set  fire to  a vehicle  on                                                                    
property  in any  place besides  the Knik  River Public  Use                                                                    
Area, where it would still result only in a $50 fine.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:24:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Joule  queried the issue of  not possessing a                                                                    
driver's  license  while  driving. He  wondered  whether  it                                                                    
helped if a  person knew the pertinent  information (such as                                                                    
the driver's license number and expiration dates).                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Carpeneti believed  the situation  could depend  on how                                                                    
well the  officer who stopped  the person knew them.  In any                                                                    
case,  a  person could  later  bring  the license  into  the                                                                    
police  department, and  the charge  would  be dismissed  or                                                                    
voided.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
HB  175  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 127                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act relating  to the  crimes  of stalking,  online                                                                    
     enticement  of  a  minor, unlawful  exploitation  of  a                                                                    
     minor, endangering  the welfare of a  child, sending an                                                                    
     explicit image of a  minor, harassment, distribution of                                                                    
     indecent material  to minors, and  misconduct involving                                                                    
     confidential  information; relating  to probation;  and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara returned  to discussion  of HB  127. He                                                                    
questioned the  intent of the bill  regarding texting images                                                                    
of body parts.  He wanted to know whether the  intent was to                                                                    
refer to body parts that were only uncovered.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Carpeneti stated  that the  intent  of the  legislation                                                                    
related  to  unclothed body  parts;  in  sexual assault  and                                                                    
sexual   abuse  situations,   the   terms  generally   meant                                                                    
unclothed.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  wondered whether dressing  a 12-year-                                                                    
old in lingerie  would be allowable. She  thought there were                                                                    
more issues that needed to be discussed.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti  responded that the House  Judiciary Committee                                                                    
had reviewed  the bill  and limited  it because  of concerns                                                                    
about the  breadth of scope  and constitutional  issues. The                                                                    
proposed law was  more limited than it  had been originally.                                                                    
She asked whether the committee intended to broaden it.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  thought that the intent  needed to be                                                                    
clear  if  the  state  was  going  to  be  able  to  protect                                                                    
children.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Carpeneti added that HB  127 had a fairly limited focus.                                                                    
She pointed  out that there  were other  provisions (related                                                                    
to  "unlawful exploitation  of a  minor")  that would  cover                                                                    
more  serious  conduct.  The provisions  prohibited  putting                                                                    
children in certain positions and creating images of them.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  did not  understand  how  a bill  that                                                                    
would create  new crimes that  could result in  people going                                                                    
to jail could  have a zero Department  of Corrections fiscal                                                                    
note.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 24                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act extending the termination date of the                                                                              
     Regulatory Commission of Alaska; and providing for an                                                                      
     effective date."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:29:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze  explained that the proposal  to extend the                                                                    
Regulatory Commission  of Alaska  (RCA) had  been previously                                                                    
included in  another bill, and  had been separated  out into                                                                    
HB 24 in order to simplify the issue.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
KONRAD JACKSON, STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, explained                                                                    
that HB  24 would extend the  RCA's sunset date to  June 30,                                                                    
2019. He  pointed to the  summary and the  Legislative Audit                                                                    
recommendation  for  an  eight-year  extension.  Legislative                                                                    
Audit  had noted  that the  RCA had  taken steps  to address                                                                    
issues raised in the 2006  audit, even though everything was                                                                    
not completely resolved.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair   Stoltze  noted   that  the   proposed  eight-year                                                                    
extension was an indication that  there were still problems.                                                                    
He wondered whether  it would be fair to say  that the state                                                                    
would continue to have a regulatory commission.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Jackson responded in the  affirmative. He added that the                                                                    
intent was an eight-year  extension. He believed Legislative                                                                    
Audit  was  comfortable with  the  process,  since they  had                                                                    
recommended the extension.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough   stated  that   she  held   the  RCA                                                                    
responsible for the energy  shortage in Southcentral Alaska.                                                                    
She  stated her  intent to  file  an amendment  to make  the                                                                    
proposed  extension  much shorter.  She  wanted  to have  an                                                                    
extensive conversation about the  shortfalls and to hear the                                                                    
challenges faced  by those  who had  to go  to the  RCA. She                                                                    
supported having  a consumer protection agency,  but she was                                                                    
concerned  about brownouts  and blackouts  in the  Anchorage                                                                    
area.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:34:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze  pointed out that there  were people absent                                                                    
from the hearing.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
PAT DAVIDSON,  LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, DIVISION  OF LEGISLATIVE                                                                    
AUDIT, explained that during the  audit, the agency had made                                                                    
a recommendation  for an  eight-year extension;  inherent in                                                                    
the recommendation  was the continuing  every-two-year audit                                                                    
requirement in place  to review whether the  RCA was meeting                                                                    
its  statutory  timelines  with   regard  to  the  cases  in                                                                    
dockets.  Additionally, information  included in  the annual                                                                    
report  was in  the  missions and  measures,  and any  other                                                                    
performance  objectives that  management  decided to  adopt.                                                                    
The  every-two-year  audit  was   one  of  the  reasons  the                                                                    
recommendation was for an eight-year extension.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Edgmon noted that he  had served on the House                                                                    
Special Committee on Energy and  appreciated the work of the                                                                    
RCA.  He recalled  seeing the  organizational chart  listing                                                                    
the accounting and finance staff;  he thought the lineup was                                                                    
inadequate. He  asked whether the  number of staff  had been                                                                    
an issue.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Davidson replied  that the audit noted that  the RCA was                                                                    
experiencing  staff turnover;  however,  the  audit did  not                                                                    
specifically evaluate the adequacy of the number of staff.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Edgmon questioned  whether the staffing issue                                                                    
was important  to focus on,  given all  that the RCA  had to                                                                    
oversee.  He  asked  whether   Legislative  Audit  had  been                                                                    
directed to consider staffing.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Davidson replied  that  the audit  looked  more at  the                                                                    
outcomes  and  found that  the  commission  was meeting  its                                                                    
statutory  timelines. She  added  that some  of the  surveys                                                                    
done  with some  of  the utilities  and  customers had  been                                                                    
generally  supportive of  the statutory  timelines, although                                                                    
some of  the timelines  were seen to  be more  generous than                                                                    
some might have wanted.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:39:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze queried  audit findings  related to  staff                                                                    
and operational or continuity issues  that the length of the                                                                    
sunset would have bearing on.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Davidson responded that no  new recommendations had been                                                                    
made in  the audit  report. However, it  was noted  that the                                                                    
RCA  was still  working  on implementing  one  of the  prior                                                                    
audit's  recommendations related  to developing  regulations                                                                    
to establish standards for certain aspects of discovery.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze recalled past six-month extensions.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Costello pointed  to  timelines intended  to                                                                    
elicit  results in  an expedient  manner and  questioned the                                                                    
reason for stop-the-clock activities.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BOB PICKETT, CHAIRMAN, REGULATORY  COMMISSION OF ALASKA (via                                                                    
teleconference), was not  aware of "stop-the-clock" actions.                                                                    
He  referred to  a provision  in statute  for extensions;  a                                                                    
docket could be extended by  agreement of all the parties to                                                                    
that docket, or  the commission could extend up  to a period                                                                    
of 90 days (one time) on its own motion, for good cause.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough queried  the timing  of the  previous                                                                    
audit's   recommendation    for   the    implementation   of                                                                    
regulations.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Davidson replied that the  recommendations had been made                                                                    
in the audit that was released at the end of 2006.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough  pointed out  that the agency  had had                                                                    
at least four full years to implement the recommendations.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair   Stoltze  invited   the  RCA   chairman  to   make                                                                    
statements.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Pickett  reported that  the RCA  had been  supportive of                                                                    
the Legislative  Audit's recommendations for  the eight-year                                                                    
extension primarily identified for  stability. He added that                                                                    
four  years prior,  there had  been a  joint executive-  and                                                                    
legislative-branch  task force  on  the RCA;  at that  time,                                                                    
clear issues relating  to the ability to  attract and retain                                                                    
personnel were  identified. He wished  he could  report that                                                                    
substantial progress  had been  made on  the issues,  but he                                                                    
could not.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr.   Picket   continued   that  since   a   Department   of                                                                    
Administrative  (DOA) effort  and  study made  in August  of                                                                    
2010, the  RCA had experienced  100 percent turnover  in its                                                                    
tariff department,  and decades  of experience had  left the                                                                    
agency  to  take  positions  at  utilities  and  higher-paid                                                                    
employment in other  sectors. The turnover came  at the time                                                                    
the  agency  was  preparing for  the  Trans-Alaska  Pipeline                                                                    
(TAPS)  rate cases.  He noted  a "challenging  situation" in                                                                    
the finance department,  but added that there  had been some                                                                    
progress in the last 60  days with the new administration at                                                                    
DOA.  He pointed  out that  starting  in the  fall of  2011,                                                                    
there  would be  eight weeks  of hearings  with the  Federal                                                                    
Energy   Regulatory   Commission    related   to   strategic                                                                    
refiguration cases.  He maintained  that the  activity would                                                                    
put a burden on the RCA.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:44:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Pickett  did not want  to lose additional  staff because                                                                    
of uncertainty  about the timing  of the extension.  He said                                                                    
that he  shared frustrations related  to the Cook  Inlet gas                                                                    
issues.  He noted  that he  had been  on the  commission for                                                                    
three years and was astounded  that things had gotten to the                                                                    
point they were at.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Pickett acknowledged that the  RCA had made decisions in                                                                    
2006 that he would change,  given the chance. He pointed out                                                                    
that in the past couple of  years, the RCA had approved five                                                                    
natural-gas  supply contracts,  natural-gas storage  through                                                                    
the  new  utility, and  was  confronted  with an  excess  of                                                                    
approximately $1  billion of  capital expenditures  on which                                                                    
the commission  would be  making decisions  in the  next few                                                                    
years.  He maintained  that all  of the  activities required                                                                    
competent staff, commitment, and some level of stability.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Picket explained  that the  RCA dealt  with contentious                                                                    
issues  and that  everybody involved  was  rarely happy.  He                                                                    
stated that  he had  worked to ensure  that anyone  who came                                                                    
before  the  commission  was treated  fairly  and  evaluated                                                                    
properly.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough acknowledged  the  complexity of  the                                                                    
work. She asked  why the 2006 audit  recommendations had not                                                                    
been completed.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Pickett  responded  that  it   had  been  a  matter  of                                                                    
prioritization.  The commission  had  started  a process  of                                                                    
soliciting  input   from  the  industry  and   the  impacted                                                                    
parties, and had  worked with Legislative Audit  when it was                                                                    
at the  commission during  the fall  of 2010.  He maintained                                                                    
that there was  currently a higher level of  emphasis on the                                                                    
issue.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Pickett stressed  that the issue was not  easy, as there                                                                    
were so many different  perspectives; expediting the process                                                                    
from any one party's perspective  would impede the rights of                                                                    
another party.  He believed  progress could  be made  in the                                                                    
near future.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough  asked whether  salary issues  made it                                                                    
hard to retain staff, or whether there were other reasons.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:48:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Pickett  responded  that   all  possible  reasons  were                                                                    
considered. He stated that the  working environment was very                                                                    
stressful.  He  noted that  the  tariff  division was  being                                                                    
restaffed  and  that  he was  comfortable  with  the  people                                                                    
hired.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough  questioned  whether  staff  reported                                                                    
directly to him.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Pickett responded  that  there  was middle  management,                                                                    
including an  advisory section  chief, a  commission section                                                                    
chief, and a chief administrative law judge.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
In  response to  a  question by  Vice-chair Fairclough,  Mr.                                                                    
Pickett  replied that  the tariff  department  was the  most                                                                    
extreme example.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Costello  questioned   how   many  of   the                                                                    
commissioners were assigned to the TAPS rate case.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Pickett  replied  that   all  five  commissioners  were                                                                    
assigned to the case.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Costello  asked  what would  happen  to  the                                                                    
workload  not  related to  the  case.  She wondered  whether                                                                    
other work would be put on hold.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Pickett  replied that with statutory  deadlines, the RCA                                                                    
did not have  the option to put work on  hold. He noted that                                                                    
past  rate  cases  had   required  all  five  commissioners,                                                                    
especially when  the judicial branch  came into  the process                                                                    
and there  were remands.  He believed all  the commissioners                                                                    
were needed for the TAPS case.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Costello   clarified  that  it  was   not  a                                                                    
statutory requirement to assign  all five commissioners, but                                                                    
a management decision.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:51:48 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:56:38 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED Conceptual Amendment 1:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Line 5, change "2019" to "2015"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan OBJECTED.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Jackson stated that the  sponsor felt that the year 2015                                                                    
was a  step in  the right  direction. He  did not  think two                                                                    
years was sufficient.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Pickett stated that he had no comment on the amendment.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze asked  whether he  thought four  years was                                                                    
better than two, but still worse than eight years.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Pickett agreed that the assessment was correct.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  asked  whether a  four-year  extension                                                                    
made any difference to the operation of the agency.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Pickett responded  that the  situation would  depend on                                                                    
the individual assessments  of employees at the  RCA and the                                                                    
commissioners.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze believed Mr.  Pickett was supportive of the                                                                    
eight-year extension.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Pickett agreed.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:59:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson queried  the number  of vacancies  at                                                                    
the RCA and how long they had been vacant.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr.   Pickett  responded   that  there   were  about   eight                                                                    
vacancies. He offered to get more information.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough  recognized  the  difficulty  of  the                                                                    
RCA's  job  and  commended  the work  of  the  chairman  and                                                                    
commissioners.  She  argued  that recommendations  had  been                                                                    
made and regulations had not  been created in the four years                                                                    
allowed.  She  hoped to  come  back  to the  legislature  to                                                                    
provide  the  correct  incentives to  adequately  compensate                                                                    
staff. She  felt recommendations were needed  sooner than in                                                                    
eight years.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara requested an  explanation of why the RCA                                                                    
had not adopted the regulations.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Pickett  replied that the rule-making  process had never                                                                    
been  instituted;  once  a  rule-making  process  officially                                                                    
began at a  public meeting, there was a  two-year clock that                                                                    
began  as well.  Currently,  the  RCA was  at  the point  of                                                                    
framing what the draft regulations  might look like in order                                                                    
to begin  moving forward. He  believed that the  process had                                                                    
not  begun in  2006 and  2007 because  there had  been other                                                                    
priorities.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:02:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara OBJECTED to  the amendment. He described                                                                    
history; when he had first  come to the legislature, the RCA                                                                    
had  been embroiled  in fights  between different  companies                                                                    
and there had  been a lot of pressure placed  on the RCA. He                                                                    
thought a shorter  extension would put more  pressure on the                                                                    
RCA to cede  independence that was already  granted to cover                                                                    
consumer matters.  He thought a longer  extension would give                                                                    
the  commission the  green light  to act  as an  independent                                                                    
agency.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough  concurred and  stated that  she would                                                                    
not have  offered a conceptual  amendment if  previous audit                                                                    
recommendations from  2006 had been complied  with. She felt                                                                    
the  RCA had  already been  given  four years  to come  into                                                                    
compliance;  she  wanted  to  hold  commissions  and  boards                                                                    
accountable for  audit recommendations.  She noted  that she                                                                    
did  not  choose  a  two-year  extension  in  the  amendment                                                                    
because  she realized  that the  commission had  a difficult                                                                    
job.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze   spoke  to   the  issue   of  legislative                                                                    
involvement, pointing out that  there had been no amendments                                                                    
of  substance offered  by anyone.  He thought  the extension                                                                    
was fairly simple, but believed it was possibly too long.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:05:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan spoke in  support of the amendment. He                                                                    
had  wanted to  support the  eight-year proposal,  but found                                                                    
the argument  by Vice-chair Fairclough to  be compelling. He                                                                    
referred to agencies  that had not complied  with audits. He                                                                    
did not  know whether  shortening the  time would  force the                                                                    
RCA to comply,  but he thought there had to  be some kind of                                                                    
consequence for non-compliance.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson spoke  in support  of the  amendment.                                                                    
She wanted to  send a message to the  RCA about expectations                                                                    
of consistency and an effort  towards correction in response                                                                    
to audits. She referred to other, similar legislation.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg asked  how long  the TAPS  tariff                                                                    
rate case would take.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Pickett responded,  "That is an open  question." He said                                                                    
that there were  a number of parties involved  and the issue                                                                    
was contentious.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Guttenberg   spoke   in  support   of   the                                                                    
amendment,  but had  concerns that  the same  problems would                                                                    
come up  again in four years,  and then the agency  would be                                                                    
in  the  middle  of  a contentious  issue.  He  thought  big                                                                    
politics would  be involved,  and pressure  would be  put on                                                                    
the board.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:09:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan  stated  that  he  would  support  an                                                                    
eight-year extension if the RCA  could fix what needed to be                                                                    
fixed by  the following  year, which would  address concerns                                                                    
about  having to  get re-authorization  in the  middle of  a                                                                    
contentious rate case.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough stated for the  record that no one had                                                                    
spoken to  her other  than Mr.  Pickett about  problems with                                                                    
the  RCA. She  stated that  she was  not involved  in "phone                                                                    
wars" and  did not  want to be.  However, she  believed that                                                                    
recommendations made by auditors had to be complied with.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  MAINTAINED his OBJECTION  to Conceptual                                                                    
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Gara                                                                                                                  
OPPOSED:  Joule,   Wilson,  Costello,   Doogan,  Fairclough,                                                                    
Guttenberg, Thomas, Stoltze                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Neuman was absent from the vote.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
The  MOTION   PASSED  (8/1).  Conceptual  Amendment   1  was                                                                    
adopted.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:11:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough  MOVED to  report CSHB 24(FIN)  out of                                                                    
committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal  note. There being NO  OBJECTION, it was                                                                    
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CSHB 24(FIN) was REPORTED out  of committee with a "do pass"                                                                    
recommendation and with the attached  new fiscal note by the                                                                    
House  Finance Committee  for  the  Department of  Commerce,                                                                    
Community and Economic Development.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:12:30 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:15:15 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 164                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to insurance;  relating to health care                                                                    
     insurance,  exemption of  certain insurers,  reporting,                                                                    
     notice, and  record-keeping requirements  for insurers,                                                                    
     biographical   affidavits,   qualifications  of   alien                                                                    
     insurers assuming  ceded insurance,  risk-based capital                                                                    
     for insurers,  insurance holding  companies, licensing,                                                                    
     federal requirements for  nonadmitted insurers, surplus                                                                    
     lines  insurance,   insurance  fraud,   life  insurance                                                                    
     policies and annuity contracts,  rate filings by health                                                                    
     care  insurers,  long-term care  insurance,  automobile                                                                    
     service  corporations,  guaranty  fund  deposits  of  a                                                                    
     title   insurer,   joint  title   plants,   delinquency                                                                    
     proceedings,  fraternal   benefit  societies,  multiple                                                                    
     employer  welfare  arrangements, hospital  and  medical                                                                    
     service    corporations,    and   health    maintenance                                                                    
     organizations; and providing for an effective date."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:15:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KONRAD JACKSON, STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, explained                                                                    
that  the Department  of Commerce,  Community, and  Economic                                                                    
Development (DCCED) was the requestor  of the bill. He added                                                                    
that the  purpose of the bill  was to clean up  language and                                                                    
terminology   related  to   insurance.   In  addition,   the                                                                    
legislation  would deal  with issues  that  would bring  the                                                                    
state into compliance with federal regulations.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
LINDA HALL,  DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INSURANCE,  DEPARTMENT OF                                                                    
COMMERCE,  COMMUNITY,  AND ECONOMIC  DEVELOPMENT,  explained                                                                    
that HB 164  was long; some of the items  were required, and                                                                    
some represented  streamlining activities that  would update                                                                    
consumer protections. She explained  the subject grouping in                                                                    
the bill and her intent to provide an overview by section.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall began with Section  1, which covered a small change                                                                    
in statute (also  reflected in Section 22)  that would allow                                                                    
insurance  companies selling  group insurance  to be  exempt                                                                    
from the  state's licensing statutes  if they had  less than                                                                    
$50,000  in premiums.  For example,  one company  (the Texas                                                                    
Health  Insurance Policy)  was  headquartered  in Texas  and                                                                    
covered  five  employees in  Alaska;  the  division did  not                                                                    
think it necessary for the  company to go through the entire                                                                    
licensing process  to get a  certificate of authority  to be                                                                    
able to  continue to  write health  insurance for  only five                                                                    
employees.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  informed  the   committee  that  the  terminology                                                                    
section was  intended to bring various  Alaska statutes into                                                                    
conformity with  each other. The term  "managed care entity"                                                                    
would be taken  out and replaced with  "health care insurer"                                                                    
throughout the following 21 sections.  She detailed that the                                                                    
term "managed  care" was  only found  in AS  21.07; changing                                                                    
the   terminology   would   reduce  confusion   and   create                                                                    
consistency.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:19:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  directed  attention   to  pages  15  through  22,                                                                    
containing  a  variety  of   technical  changes  related  to                                                                    
solvency  oversight. She  described the  primary mission  of                                                                    
the  Division  of Insurance  as  solvency  oversight of  the                                                                    
insurance  companies  doing  business   in  the  state.  The                                                                    
division's  general philosophy  was  that if  there was  not                                                                    
money to  pay a claim when  a consumer had one,  the rest of                                                                    
it did not  matter. Other things (such  as measuring capital                                                                    
and risk) followed solvency.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  referred  to  sections   in  which  the  National                                                                    
Association  of  Insurance   Commissioners  model  laws  had                                                                    
changed.  The   current  issue  was   "risk-based  capital";                                                                    
instead of a  formula for determining the  amount of capital                                                                    
and surplus, there  was a different type  of evaluation that                                                                    
dealt  with the  risk taken  by companies.  She referred  to                                                                    
past  investments in  sub-prime  mortgages;  these would  be                                                                    
considered "high-risk," and would not be allowed.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  pointed that  there were  very different  types of                                                                    
risk. For  example, there  were insurance  companies dealing                                                                    
with  earthquake insurance,  and others  dealing with  brick                                                                    
dwellings in the  middle of the country and not  on a fault.                                                                    
Much  of  the  language  in HB  164  dealt  with  risk-based                                                                    
capital  and  changes in  the  way  that was  evaluated.  In                                                                    
addition,  the  bill  would  increase  the  level  at  which                                                                    
regulators took action from 250 percent to 300 percent.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  noted that  some  of  the sections  required  the                                                                    
reporting of electronic mailing  addresses. She reminded the                                                                    
committee  about a  past discussion  about how  the division                                                                    
communicated  with those  it regulated;  it  was allowed  to                                                                    
collect electronic mailing address so  that it could be more                                                                    
efficient   in   its  communications.   Record   maintenance                                                                    
requirements would also be made more stringent.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  pointed  out  that the  division  tried  to  meet                                                                    
national  standards  set  by  the  National  Association  of                                                                    
Insurance Commissioners so  that financial examinations were                                                                    
capable of being used by other states.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:23:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  turned to the  section labeled  "Licensing," which                                                                    
would streamline  the way the  state licensed  agents. There                                                                    
would  no  longer be  an  individual  or firm  license;  the                                                                    
license  would   belong  to  the   individual  and   if  the                                                                    
individual  changed employment,  the license  would go  with                                                                    
them.  The  need   to  report  to  the   division  would  be                                                                    
eliminated if the  individual turned in the  license and got                                                                    
a  new  one.  The  process would  save  work  and  eliminate                                                                    
penalties for  not doing  things in  a timely  fashion. Both                                                                    
the  way the  division  licensed and  the  very complex  fee                                                                    
structure would be changed.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  continued  that  the  statute  would  require  an                                                                    
employment  contract so  the individual  agent working  in a                                                                    
firm could  operate under the appointments  by the insurance                                                                    
companies that the firm was  allowed to do business with. In                                                                    
addition, the fiduciary accounts and records could be used.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall highlighted  Section 38,  which  would remove  the                                                                    
requirement that  non-residents be fingerprinted.  She noted                                                                    
that there was a national  standard to no longer fingerprint                                                                    
agents to  be in compliance  with a federal law  (the Gramm-                                                                    
Leach-Bliley Act). The statute  would still require the firm                                                                    
to be responsible for the  individuals working under it, but                                                                    
the  individual  agents  would have  more  flexibility.  The                                                                    
streamlining  of  agent  licensing  would  allow  people  to                                                                    
conduct business in a more efficient manner.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson asked  for  clarification related  to                                                                    
resident and non-resident fingerprinting.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  responded that a non-resident  individual would be                                                                    
fingerprinted   in  their   home   state.   The  issue   was                                                                    
reciprocity;   there  was   a  national   standard  of   not                                                                    
fingerprinting.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  asked  whether there  was  a  reason                                                                    
Alaska required fingerprinting.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall replied  that  she  did not  know  the reason  for                                                                    
fingerprinting,  as it  pre-dated  her (she  had been  doing                                                                    
insurance business in  Alaska for over 20  years). She added                                                                    
that  the   general  idea  across   the  country   was  that                                                                    
background  checks included  questions about  convictions of                                                                    
felonies;  one  of  the  standard   criteria  to  become  an                                                                    
insurance agent was trustworthiness.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:27:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson expressed  concerns about the section.                                                                    
She  did not  want people  to be  fingerprinted in  order to                                                                    
prove trustworthiness. She wanted  to know where the section                                                                    
came from.  She did  not think it  was a  national standard,                                                                    
since only 24 states required fingerprinting.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg  pointed out  that the  bill could                                                                    
easily  have  said  that  agents were  not  required  to  be                                                                    
fingerprinted if  they were  fingerprinted in  another state                                                                    
where  their  jurisdiction was,  since  less  than half  the                                                                    
states required fingerprinting. He  thought there were three                                                                    
different  things  going  on in  the  section:  meeting  the                                                                    
national  standard  of  the  insurance  commissioners,  some                                                                    
federal law  issues, and the division's  recommendations for                                                                    
changes  in   statute.  He  wondered  whether   three  bills                                                                    
conforming to three different things would have helped.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg asked  that the  three categories                                                                    
be delineated, if the bill was not held over.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall replied  that  the fingerprinting  was  part of  a                                                                    
national  standard;   all  states  did   background  checks,                                                                    
although  they  might  not  go  so  far  as  doing  them  by                                                                    
fingerprinting. She  maintained that the state  would not be                                                                    
in compliance  with some  of the  national standards  if the                                                                    
fingerprinting provision was changed.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall noted  that  there were  different  levels in  the                                                                    
bill.  There were  changes in  federal  law that  had to  be                                                                    
complied   with.  There   were   changes  in   accreditation                                                                    
standards. There  were also  things she  would like  to see,                                                                    
such as  the streamlining  of agent licensing.  In addition,                                                                    
there  was the  section  on  long-term-care statutes,  which                                                                    
were  20 years  old  and did  not  reflect the  marketplace.                                                                    
There were consumer items that  were not required by federal                                                                    
law  or accreditation  standards; however,  her goal  as the                                                                    
director  of   the  division  was  protections   for  Alaska                                                                    
consumers.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall acknowledged  that all the various  pieces had been                                                                    
gathered  together in  one bill.  She noted  that there  had                                                                    
been significant  discussion about  whether to  separate the                                                                    
issues into  multiple bills. She  said that the  decision to                                                                    
have   one  bill   had  been   made   in  conjunction   with                                                                    
Representative Olson.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:31:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  stated that  she could probably  make HB  164 into                                                                    
four bills on different topics.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Wilson   clarified   that   she   supported                                                                    
background   checks,    but   questioned   the    need   for                                                                    
fingerprinting.   She   queried   the  extent   of   federal                                                                    
requirements.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  replied  that  federal   law  did  not  call  for                                                                    
fingerprinting, but the national  standards had been adopted                                                                    
as  the goal  for how  all states  should do  the background                                                                    
check. House  Bill 164 would not  add fingerprinting; Alaska                                                                    
had been fingerprinting  for at least 24 years.  She did not                                                                    
know why the requirement had started, but it was very old.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  did not think "we've  always done it"                                                                    
was a  good enough reason.  She thought the  requirement for                                                                    
fingerprinting needed  to be  taken out  of the  bill unless                                                                    
there was a good justification for it.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan   queried  the  state's   reason  for                                                                    
fingerprinting.  He  wanted  to check  his  assumption  that                                                                    
people's identities were checked  because they handled money                                                                    
and Alaska wanted  to know whether they had  been in trouble                                                                    
in some other state.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  responded that the  reason for  fingerprinting was                                                                    
indeed related to handling money,  but that was not the only                                                                    
reason for  it. She  referred to the  example of  a licensee                                                                    
who  had  issued  false  insurance  certificates  to  people                                                                    
without  collecting money  (although  that  had happened  as                                                                    
well); there were various types  of crimes of fiduciary lack                                                                    
of responsibility.  She noted that  there was a  federal law                                                                    
requiring any felon  working in any aspect  of the insurance                                                                    
business (even in the mailroom) to apply to the division.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:35:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  stated that fingerprinting  seemed to  help people                                                                    
remember  that  they  had  a  felony  in  their  background,                                                                    
although  that was  not  common in  Alaska.  She added  that                                                                    
there  was a  national database  with the  information about                                                                    
felons. The state checked license actions in the same way.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough  pointed to  page  25  and asked  for                                                                    
information  about  the   new  section  allowing  employment                                                                    
contracts.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall   answered  that  the   state  would   require  an                                                                    
employment  contract.  When the  state  changed  the way  it                                                                    
licensed (no longer  had individuals in a  firm license), it                                                                    
would require that a firm  had a contract with the employees                                                                    
who  would  work  under  the  firm  license  and  under  the                                                                    
appointment  with   the  insurance  company.  Many   of  the                                                                    
agencies   that  did   business   in   Alaska  were   called                                                                    
"independent  agencies"  with   appointments  with  multiple                                                                    
insurance companies.  She referred  to Alaska  National, the                                                                    
largest  insurance  company  headquartered  in  Alaska.  She                                                                    
described  a  possible   situation  involving  an  insurance                                                                    
agency with  an appointment  with insurance company  A (such                                                                    
as  Alaska National).  The individuals  working in  the firm                                                                    
would use  the appointment  to transact business;  they were                                                                    
enabled to write business under  the appointment held by the                                                                    
firm.  She  added  that  the  insurance  companies  did  not                                                                    
normally  appoint individuals  in such  cases. For  example,                                                                    
Marsh  (a   large  brokerage  in  Anchorage)   probably  had                                                                    
appointments  with  45 companies  and  50  to 70  employees;                                                                    
those  employees   could  transact  business  with   the  45                                                                    
companies because  of the  single appointment.  The division                                                                    
wanted  there to  be  a connection  so  that the  individual                                                                    
agent could  work under the  appointment, the  records could                                                                    
be considered theirs, and the  accounting of monies could be                                                                    
shared.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:38:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough summarized  that the  appointment was                                                                    
the contract  between an insurance agency  and someone being                                                                    
insured.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall corrected  her; the  appointment  was between  the                                                                    
insurance  company  and the  agency  that  would sell  their                                                                    
product.  The employment  contract  was  between the  agency                                                                    
selling  the product  and the  individual agent  working for                                                                    
the firm.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough  had questions related to  payroll and                                                                    
accounting, but she said she was totally confused.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  explained that the  appointment was  between those                                                                    
offering a product  and the agency selling  the product. The                                                                    
consumer would buy  the product from the  agency selling the                                                                    
product; the consumer did not  buy the product directly from                                                                    
the insurance company offering the product.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair   Fairclough   questioned  how   the   employment                                                                    
contracts  were handled  related  to  payroll. She  wondered                                                                    
whether an employment contract could  shelter an agency from                                                                    
a wrongdoing by  the employee, whether they  were handled as                                                                    
employees or contracts.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall replied  they  were handled  as  an employee;  the                                                                    
contract  was  not  intended to  make  them  an  independent                                                                    
contractor.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough  asked  whether  the  contract  would                                                                    
provide protection from liability  because of an independent                                                                    
employment contract  with the person selling  the product to                                                                    
the consumer.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  replied in  the negative. She  pointed to  page 25                                                                    
(d), which stated  that a firm would be  responsible for the                                                                    
actions and  the individual transacting insurance  under the                                                                    
firm's  employment;  the  intent  was that  the  firm  would                                                                    
continue  to be  responsible for  the actions  of the  agent                                                                    
working  under   the  contract.  She  emphasized   that  the                                                                    
contract   was    not   a   shelter   from    liability   or                                                                    
responsibility.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall continued  her review of the  legislation with what                                                                    
she felt  was the most important  section of the bill.   She                                                                    
relayed that in  June 2010, a federal law  was passed called                                                                    
the Non-admitted  and Reinsurance Reform Act.  The law dealt                                                                    
with  the  premium  tax  of  non-admitted  or  surplus-lines                                                                    
insurance.  She  detailed  that there  were  two  ways  that                                                                    
insurance companies  wrote business. The  first, traditional                                                                    
way  (pertaining to  90 percent  of  Alaskan insurance)  was                                                                    
selling  as  an  admitted  insurer  with  a  certificate  of                                                                    
authority to operate in the state; premium tax was paid.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:42:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  continued  that the  state  collected  about  $50                                                                    
million in  premium tax  and about $47  million of  that tax                                                                    
was from the  admitted insurance market. The  second way was                                                                    
called   non-admitted  or   surplus-lines  insurance;   this                                                                    
pertained to  insurers who  decided they  did not  do enough                                                                    
business  in Alaska  to go  through the  rigors of  becoming                                                                    
licensed  and having  forms and  rates approved.  The second                                                                    
group  of   insurers  did   business  through   a  brokerage                                                                    
arrangement;  the brokerage  paid the  premium tax  for $3.5                                                                    
million worth of  business. The federal law  referred to the                                                                    
second type of  business, surplus lines. The  second type of                                                                    
business was  regulated differently, was not  covered by the                                                                    
guarantee fund disclaimers, and was sold differently.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  detailed that  the federal law  passed in  June of                                                                    
2010 pre-empted  the states  to the  extent of  changing the                                                                    
way  the state  could collect  the premium  tax. Instead  of                                                                    
being collected  only for the  portion of  the (multi-state)                                                                    
risk in  Alaska, each  state needed  to pass  legislation to                                                                    
collect 100 percent  of the premium tax for  a company whose                                                                    
home state was Alaska.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  gave the  example of  a cruise-ship  business that                                                                    
was headquartered in California but  had risk in the form of                                                                    
lodges  and docks  in  Alaska. A  portion  of the  company's                                                                    
insurance risk  was in Alaska. Alaska  would collect premium                                                                    
tax on  the pieces of  property or liability risk  that were                                                                    
in  Alaska.  Under the  new  federal  law, California  would                                                                    
collect  100  percent of  the  premium  tax. Therefore,  the                                                                    
federal law encouraged  the states to either  join a compact                                                                    
or to find some other  procedure of collecting the taxes and                                                                    
re-allocating them back  to the states. The  taxing rate was                                                                    
not changed and  a company would pay the same  amount of tax                                                                    
if  its home  state was  Alaska, but  would pay  all of  the                                                                    
taxes to Alaska.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  emphasized that  the  federal  law intended  each                                                                    
state to  adopt uniform  forms and procedures  for reporting                                                                    
the collection and allocation of the premium tax.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:46:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall informed  the committee  that the  section of  the                                                                    
bill from  pages 27 to 37  would change how the  state would                                                                    
collect  tax and  would  authorize the  director  to join  a                                                                    
clearinghouse. She  referred to significant  national debate                                                                    
on the  best way  to implement  the federal  law. Regulators                                                                    
formed an implementation taskforce  and studied various ways                                                                    
to  implement the  law,  including  asking legislatures  for                                                                    
authority to join a compact,  keeping whatever the state was                                                                    
entitled  to  keep,  or  asking  for  authority  to  join  a                                                                    
clearinghouse.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall pointed out that  there were perimeters in the bill                                                                    
that  would protect  the revenue  stream,  which was  fairly                                                                    
small for Alaska; of the  roughly $50 million of premium tax                                                                    
collected  in  the  state,  the  number  was  probably  $0.5                                                                    
million.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall noted  that the section on surplus  lines needed to                                                                    
be changed  to achieve compliance  with the federal  law; it                                                                    
also needed  an adoption of  the definition of  "home state"                                                                    
so that Alaska  could collect 100 percent of the  tax of any                                                                    
company that happened to be  a multi-state company domiciled                                                                    
in  Alaska. The  bill  would then  allow  the allocation  of                                                                    
taxes  and authorize  the division  to join  a clearinghouse                                                                    
operation (a  streamlined way  of collecting  and disbursing                                                                    
the taxes).                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  added  that  the   division  already  had  taxing                                                                    
authority  and  collected  premium  tax;  it  was  not  done                                                                    
through the  Department of Revenue. Therefore,  the taxation                                                                    
issue was not  new authority. She noted  that the perimeters                                                                    
of the clearinghouse were very small.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:49:10 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:51:58 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough OPENED public testimony.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
STEVE  STEPHAN, DIRECTOR  OF GOVERNMENT  RELATIONS, NATIONAL                                                                    
ASSOCIATION   PROFESSIONAL   SURPLUS   LINES   OFFICE   (via                                                                    
teleconference),  testified  both  in   support  of  and  in                                                                    
opposition  to  HB  164.  He  explained  that  the  National                                                                    
Association  Professional  Surplus   Lines  Office  (NAPSLO)                                                                    
supported the proposed  provision to tax 100  percent of the                                                                    
in-state risk. The association opposed  the part of the bill                                                                    
that would  delegate authority to the  commissioner to enter                                                                    
into an  interstate compact or  agreement. He felt  that the                                                                    
agreement that had been drafted  was too burdensome a method                                                                    
of  collecting   taxes  and  would  require   numerous  data                                                                    
elements and  the construction of  a bureaucracy  to collect                                                                    
the  taxes.  He  emphasized  that there  would  be  30  data                                                                    
elements for  each policy,  which would  need to  be entered                                                                    
before inputting data to allocate taxes.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Stephan  continued that  NAPSLO was  not opposed  to the                                                                    
states trying  to share taxes  with each other, but  he felt                                                                    
the  burden would  fall on  the broker.  He stated  that the                                                                    
association  would support  a method  of sharing  taxes that                                                                    
did not burden the broker.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Stephan reported  that part of the concern  was that the                                                                    
computation  of casualty  risks  would be  required for  the                                                                    
first time,  which added a  whole new burden on  the broker.                                                                    
Currently,  brokers did  not  typically  divide things  like                                                                    
director  officer's insurance,  umbrella, and  excess; those                                                                    
types  of risks  were usually  considered home-state  risks.                                                                    
The  agreement   known  as  the   non-admitted,  multi-state                                                                    
agreement would  require the  broker to  input all  the data                                                                    
for the first time for the purpose of trying to pay taxes.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr.   Stephan  added   that  there   was  a   concern  about                                                                    
legislative  transparency;  NAPSLO  believed  the  agreement                                                                    
would  change  the   tax  laws  of  the   state.  An  Alaska                                                                    
corporation  with sales  in Florida  would be  taxed at  the                                                                    
higher  Florida  rate  (in  excess of  10  percent);  a  tax                                                                    
increase would  have to  be levied  on some  policy holders.                                                                    
The details of the agreement would  also have to do with the                                                                    
amount of  Alaska tax  revenue that would  be sent  to other                                                                    
states. The  association believed those things  should be in                                                                    
a  statute   so  that  brokers,  policy   holders,  and  the                                                                    
brokerage insurance community could  see and understand what                                                                    
the arrangement was.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:56:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Stephan  continued that  the  admitted  side (where  89                                                                    
percent  of  the business  was  written)  generally did  not                                                                    
attempt to allocate things like  health care; the allocation                                                                    
effort was  focused on  the small  segment of  the insurance                                                                    
community.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Stephan pointed  out that in general,  the vast majority                                                                    
of policies  in a  normal state were  single-state policies;                                                                    
most of the policies would  be taxed by Alaska currently and                                                                    
would be taxed  by Alaska following the  introduction of the                                                                    
legislation. In  a normal state,  the amount might be  90 to                                                                    
95 percent;  Alaska would  be different  because it  did not                                                                    
border other  states. Multi-state  risks would  be difficult                                                                    
because contractors  and others  could not easily  move from                                                                    
state to  state. He guessed  that the amount  of multi-state                                                                    
risk written in Alaska would be very small.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Stephan concluded  with  concerns  about the  long-term                                                                    
viability of  an agreement between  the states to  share tax                                                                    
revenue, because  a state would  normally object  to putting                                                                    
more money  into a system  than it  got back out,  and would                                                                    
drop  back  out. The  concern  was  that the  difficult  and                                                                    
burdensome system  for the  broker would  be built  and then                                                                    
fall  apart shortly  afterwards because  any state  that put                                                                    
more money  in than it got  back out would drop  back out of                                                                    
the system.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough  asked Mr. Stephan for  a written copy                                                                    
of his comments.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Stephan   agreed  to   supply  written   testimony  the                                                                    
following day.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall  commented that the  goal of the national  group of                                                                    
insurance regulators was not to  create an additional burden                                                                    
on  the brokers.  She referred  to  the National  Interstate                                                                    
Fuel   Tax  Agreement   (NIFTA),   which  the   Non-admitted                                                                    
Insurance  Multi-State Agreement  (NIMA) was  modeled after;                                                                    
it was  a simplified  way of  allocating collected  tax. She                                                                    
stated that there would be no change in the tax rate.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  added  that  she   strongly  disagreed  with  Mr.                                                                    
Stephan's  statement that  Alaskans  would be  taxed at  the                                                                    
Florida tax rate.  She said that everyone would  be taxed at                                                                    
the individual  state tax rate  that they currently  had. An                                                                    
Alaskan company  headquartered in  Alaska with a  $5 million                                                                    
building  in Tampa  (Florida) would  currently  be taxed  at                                                                    
Florida rates on  the building and taxed at  Alaska rates on                                                                    
the rest of the account; that  would not change with HB 164.                                                                    
She  emphasized that  the  legislation  clearly spelled  out                                                                    
that the  tax rates of  each state  would be applied  to the                                                                    
portion  of  the risk  in  that  state. She  disagreed  that                                                                    
Alaska  did  not allocate  casualty;  she  had checked  with                                                                    
commercial brokers,  who told her that  they allocated their                                                                    
casualty account when doing multi-state accounts.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough  requested that the  written testimony                                                                    
submitted by  Mr. Stephan include specific  page and section                                                                    
numbers in the legislation so that Ms. Hall could respond.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:00:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  asked  how   many  other  states  were                                                                    
dealing  with the  provision  in the  manner  Mrs. Hall  had                                                                    
recommended it be dealt with.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Hall responded that at  last count, there were 17 states                                                                    
that had  introduced the type of  legislation represented in                                                                    
HB   164;   another   14   were   contemplating   the   same                                                                    
clearinghouse arrangement.  There were about 10  states that                                                                    
had introduced a compact-type of  legislation, 5 states that                                                                    
had  both,  and 11  states  were  still thinking  about  the                                                                    
issue. She  emphasized that a  far greater number  of states                                                                    
were considering the simplified  structure represented in HB                                                                    
164.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Gara  did   not   think  many   legislators                                                                    
understood the bill.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:02:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DALE   FOSSELMAN,    SENIOR   VICE    PRESIDENT,   CORPORATE                                                                    
DEVELOPMENT,  DENALI ALASKAN  FEDERAL CREDIT  UNION, WASILLA                                                                    
(via teleconference), testified in  opposition to Section 79                                                                    
of the  legislation. He detailed  that the credit  union had                                                                    
55,000  members and  over 500  sponsor  employers, the  vast                                                                    
majority of whom employed less  than 50 workers. He spoke to                                                                    
Section 79 of HB 164,  which would address individual health                                                                    
care  insurance policies  in the  group  market. The  credit                                                                    
union felt that  the language in the  section would severely                                                                    
limit  both  employer and  employee  choice  of health  care                                                                    
insurance,  and  would  leave  employees  without  insurance                                                                    
options for extended periods of times.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Fosselman  provided  the   example  of  a  hypothetical                                                                    
employer forced to drop group  health insurance coverage due                                                                    
to   declining  profitability,   the   increasing  cost   of                                                                    
insurance, or  a combination of  both factors.  According to                                                                    
the proposed  language in HB  164, no insurer could  issue a                                                                    
policy to  those employees for  six months after  the group-                                                                    
plan coverage ended. He believed  the restriction was "quite                                                                    
onerous" and was poor public policy on several levels.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Fosselman  believed employers and employees  should have                                                                    
more  options to  obtain health  insurance in  the described                                                                    
circumstances,  instead  of   facing  restricted  access  to                                                                    
health insurance. He thought the  language of Section 79 was                                                                    
so broad  as to  seemingly prohibit  even the  discussion of                                                                    
individual health insurance policies with employers.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Fosselman  proposed  enacting  legislation  that  would                                                                    
expressly  permit the  use of  federal tax-favored  programs                                                                    
such as health reimbursement  accounts (HRAs) when employers                                                                    
eliminated   group  health   insurance  benefits.   From  an                                                                    
employer perspective,  he felt HRAs were  easy to administer                                                                    
and allowed flexibility  in determining contribution levels.                                                                    
From an  employee perspective, he  thought HRAs  allowed the                                                                    
ultimate flexibility in how the  dollars were spent, because                                                                    
they could  be used  for either a  specific list  of medical                                                                    
expenses (known  as 213(d) expenses)  or for those  that had                                                                    
health insurance,  they could be used  for co-insurance, co-                                                                    
pays, or  deductibles, in  conjunction with  that insurance.                                                                    
For  those without  insurance, HRAs  could be  used to  fund                                                                    
health   insurance   premiums.  Unlike   flexible   spending                                                                    
accounts, there would be no "use-it-or-lose-it" provision.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Fosselman  opined that  individual policies  were better                                                                    
than  group  policies.  For one,  individual  policies  were                                                                    
portable,  and  not  tied to  employment,  which  benefitted                                                                    
seasonal,  part-time,  and   temporary  workers.  Individual                                                                    
policies  typically had  more  stable  pricing, because  the                                                                    
risk-rating group  was much larger than  a smaller employer-                                                                    
based  group. Individuals  could currently  chose from  more                                                                    
than  40  plan  designs  available,  in  order  to  optimize                                                                    
coverage  and  cost  at the  individual  level.  The  option                                                                    
remained   for   individuals   to  apply   to   the   Alaska                                                                    
Comprehensive Health Association  if pre-existing conditions                                                                    
prevented  an insurer  from issuing  coverage; in  addition,                                                                    
the employer would be able  to increase the contribution for                                                                    
the individual employee.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Fosselman  concluded  that   Section  79  created  more                                                                    
problems  than it  solved for  working  Alaskans and  stated                                                                    
that establishing additional  alternatives for employees and                                                                    
employers   would    constitute   better    public   policy.                                                                    
Specifically,  he   believed  that  a  statute   that  would                                                                    
absolutely  confirm   that  employers  of  any   size  could                                                                    
establish HRAs  that could fund individual  health insurance                                                                    
expenses  without triggering  small  group health  insurance                                                                    
regulation would  ably and better  serve both  employees and                                                                    
employers.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:06:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough  asked  for  a written  copy  of  the                                                                    
testimony given. She CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Hall  acknowledged  the complexity  of  the  bill.  She                                                                    
pointed out  that there were  several sections that  she had                                                                    
not had an  opportunity to speak to  and welcomed individual                                                                    
questions if additional information was needed.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HB  164  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  Committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 147                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act setting a monthly salary for the executive                                                                         
     secretary of the Board of Public Accountancy."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:07:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER   SENETTE,   STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE   KURT   OLSON,                                                                    
SPONSOR, described  the legislation as  straightforward. She                                                                    
referred  to an  accounting bill  passed unanimously  by the                                                                    
legislature  the  prior  session,   which  had  created  the                                                                    
position of the  executive secretary of the  Board of Public                                                                    
Accountancy.  The  creation  of   the  position  was  widely                                                                    
supported  in  the  legislature  and  throughout  the  state                                                                    
because of  the recognition that the  all-volunteer Board of                                                                    
Public  Accountancy  was   understaffed  and  struggling  to                                                                    
fulfill  its  mission.  There  was  broad  support  for  the                                                                    
board's  mission  of  protecting the  public  interest;  the                                                                    
board   had   jurisdiction   over   all   certified   public                                                                    
accountants  (CPAs)  practicing  in   the  state  and  could                                                                    
address any violation of its standards.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Senette  continued that after  the position  was created                                                                    
by the  legislation, the Department of  Administration (DOA)                                                                    
came out as  usual with its draft  salary determination; the                                                                    
position was placed at a Range  19. The sponsor did not feel                                                                    
that a Range  19 would attract a qualified  candidate to the                                                                    
position,  and would  leave  the board  in  the position  of                                                                    
lacking  an  administrator  with the  desired  expertise  to                                                                    
fulfill the board's mission.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Senette added that the  fiscal note in the previous bill                                                                    
had  called for  the  position to  be at  a  Range 23;  CPAs                                                                    
around  the state,  along  with the  state  Board of  Public                                                                    
Accountancy and  the Alaska Society  of CPAs,  had supported                                                                    
the  position  at  Range  23.   She  stressed  that  it  was                                                                    
particularly  important  that  the Alaska  Society  of  CPAs                                                                    
supported  the   range  level,  because   that  organization                                                                    
represented Alaska  CPAs, and the  salary would come  out of                                                                    
their licensing  fees. She underlined  that the  state would                                                                    
not pay for the position's salary.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Ms.  Senette  detailed  that  Range  19  paid  approximately                                                                    
$58,000 per  year. She noted  that a recent graduate  in the                                                                    
field without  experience could easily make  $60,000. On the                                                                    
other hand, a  Range 23 began at $77,000.  She described the                                                                    
current  bill  as  a legislative  fix  for  the  discrepancy                                                                    
between  pay   ranges.  She  stressed  that   there  was  no                                                                    
opposition  and that  DOA had  signaled  its willingness  to                                                                    
implement  the  salary  range that  the  legislature  deemed                                                                    
appropriate.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:11:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  verified that  the cost to  the state                                                                    
was nothing and that the money would come out of CPA fees.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Senette replied in the affirmative.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
DON   RULIEN,  CERTIFIED   PUBLIC  ACCOUNTANT   and  MEMBER,                                                                    
LEGISLATIVE  COMMITTEE, ALASKA  SOCIETY OF  CERTIFIED PUBLIC                                                                    
ACCOUNTANTS,  ANCHORAGE   (via  teleconference),   spoke  in                                                                    
support of  the legislation. He informed  the committee that                                                                    
he had  been on the board  of directors for many  years; the                                                                    
committee believed it  was essential that the  pay scale for                                                                    
the position be  at Range 23 so that the  board could hire a                                                                    
person with the appropriate experience and expertise.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Rulien noted  that the  board had  struggled with  past                                                                    
executive administrators  due to their lack  of expertise in                                                                    
general  accounting matters  as  well as  in more  technical                                                                    
matters.  Past executive  directors were  shared with  other                                                                    
boards, which  put the Board  of Public Accountancy  at risk                                                                    
for missing important  issues. He pointed out  that the bill                                                                    
had a  zero fiscal note and  that the CPAs would  fully fund                                                                    
the position out of licensing fees they paid to the state.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:14:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  commented that referring to  a Range 19                                                                    
position  as  "entry  level"  had  been  upsetting  to  some                                                                    
legislative staffers, whom he believed felt the same way.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  MOVED  to   report  HB  147  out  of                                                                    
committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal  note. There being NO  OBJECTION, it was                                                                    
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HB  147 was  REPORTED  out  of Committee  with  a "do  pass"                                                                    
recommendation  and with  previously published  fiscal note:                                                                    
FN 1 (CED).                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:16:23 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:18:02 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 97                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act  extending  a provision  relating  to  noxious                                                                    
     weeds,   invasive   plants,   and   agricultural   pest                                                                    
     management  and education;  providing for  an effective                                                                    
     date by  repealing the  effective date  of sec.  2, ch.                                                                    
     102, SLA 2008; and providing for an effective date."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:18:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JEANNE   OSTNES,   STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE   CRAIG   JOHNSON,                                                                    
SPONSOR,  explained  that  the legislation  would  delete  a                                                                    
sunset for a position in  the Division of Agriculture in the                                                                    
Department  of  Natural  Resources. The  position  had  been                                                                    
created  two years  prior with  a $80,000  fiscal note  that                                                                    
provided the employee  salary but no travel  funds, desk, or                                                                    
computer. She  pointed to a  packet with an overview  of the                                                                    
employee's accomplishments. She noted  that the position had                                                                    
been widely  used throughout the  state by many of  the Soil                                                                    
and   Water   Conservation   Districts,  the   public,   the                                                                    
Cooperative Extension  Service, as  well as  other agencies.                                                                    
She  highlighted  the  third page  of  the  overview,  which                                                                    
detailed  that  the  employee had  brought  over  twice  his                                                                    
salary to the  state through writing grants,  and would have                                                                    
brought  in another  $80,000 had  there been  matching funds                                                                    
available.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson   MOVED  to  report  HB   97  out  of                                                                    
Committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal  note. There being NO  OBJECTION, it was                                                                    
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HB 97 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"                                                                            
recommendation and with attached previously published                                                                           
fiscal note: FN 1 (DNR).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 8                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act relating  to certain  federal regulations  and                                                                    
     presidential executive  orders; relating to  the duties                                                                    
     of  the   attorney  general;   and  providing   for  an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB 8 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 10                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     "An   Act  relating   to  the   registration  fee   for                                                                    
     noncommercial  trailers and  to the  motor vehicle  tax                                                                    
     for trailers."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HB 10 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 64                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     "An   Act   relating   to   permanent   motor   vehicle                                                                    
    registration; and providing for an effective date."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
HB 64 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 105                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act relating  to the  Southeast State  Forest; and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
HB 105 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 140                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act   making  a   special  appropriation   to  the                                                                    
     community  quota   entity  revolving  loan   fund;  and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
HB 140 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 141                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act relating  to loans for the  purchase of fishing                                                                    
     quota shares  by certain community quota  entities; and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
HB 141 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 76                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act  making supplemental  appropriations,  capital                                                                    
     appropriations,  and   other  appropriations;  amending                                                                    
     appropriations;   repealing    appropriations;   making                                                                    
     appropriations to  capitalize funds; and  providing for                                                                    
     an effective date."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SB 76 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:23:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
The meeting was adjourned at 4:23 PM.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB8-NEWFNLAW-CIV-03-18-11.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM
HB 8
CSHB 8 Executive Orders Info.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
CSHB 8 CFR Costs.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
CSHB 8 -HR0009A.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
CSHB 8 Null & Void article.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM
HB 8
CSHB 8 NYC v FCC Syllabus.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
CSHB 8 Sectional.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM
HB 8
CSHB 8 stroke of pen.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
CSHB 8 sponsor.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
CSHB 8 Supremacy-10th Amend.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM
HB 8
CSHB 8 Utah Em. Dom. Article.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB8-NEWFNLAW-CIV-03-18-11.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
CSHB10-NEWFNDOA-DMV-03-18-11.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 10
HB 10 Explanation of Changes.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 10
HB 10 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 10
HB24 Supporting Documents - Email Mike O'Meara 3-15-2011.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 24
HB24 Supporting Documents - Fax AARP 3-14-2011.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 24
HB24 Supporting Documents - Leg Audit #08-20067-11 Summary.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 24
HB24 Sponsor Statement ver M.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 24
HB24 Supporting Documents - Leg Audit #08-20067-11.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 24
HB24-NEWFNCCED-RCA-03-18-11.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 24
HB24 Supporting Documents - Letter GCI 3-15-2011.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 24
CSHB64-NEWFNDOA-DMV-03-18-11.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 64
HB 64 CS Section Changes.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 64
HB 64 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 64
HB64_Vehicle CountsDMV.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 64
HB64 NEWFN-DEC-AQ-03-18-11.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 64
02 HB 097 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM
HB 97
04 HB 097 Invasive Weeds and Agriculture Pest Coordinator Accomplishments.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM
HB 97
06 HB 097 LOS AK Comte for Noxious and Inv Plants Mgment.PDF HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM
HB 97
06 HB097 Report on the Alaska Weed Project.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM
HB 97
06 HB 097 LOS AK Sealife Center.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM
HB 97
06 HB097 Testify Zaumzeil.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM
HB 97
06 HB097_Perception_of_an_Invasive_Species.PDF HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM
HB 97
HB 105 AFA Letter of Support 1.12.2011.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105
HB 105 Parcel Maps 12.20.2010.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105
HB 105 Public Briefing 1.24.2011.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/14/2011 9:00:00 AM
HB 105
HB 105 Land Ownership and Mill Status.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105
HB 105 SE Land Summary 2.22.2011.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/13/2011 9:00:00 AM
HB 105
HB 105 Transmittal.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
SFIN 4/14/2011 9:00:00 AM
HB 105
HB 105 Trends Populations Projections 2010-2034.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105
HB 105 Value Added 3.8.2011.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105
HB 105 Vicinity Map 12-20-2010.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105
HB_141_Sponsor_Statement.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 141
HB141_Sectional_Analysis.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 141
HB141_Support_Letter_ GOAC3.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 141
HB141_Support_Letter_DuncanFeilds.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 141
HB141_Support_Letter_Ivanof Bay Tribe.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 141
HB141_Support_Letter_SWAMC.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 141
HB141_Support_Letter_ BVI.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 141
HB141_Support_Letter_Yakutat.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 141
HB147 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-Letter Chair of State Board 1-25-2011.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 147
HB147 Supporting Documents-Letter Alaska Socity of CPAs 2-1-2011.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 147
CSHB164(L&C) Sectional Analysis.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 164
CSHB164(L&C) Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 164
HB 175 Explanation of Changes CD JUD.doc HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HFIN 4/1/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 175
HB 175 Sponsor statement CS JUD.doc HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HFIN 4/1/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 175
HB175 Sectional CS JUD.doc HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HFIN 4/1/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 175
HB 141 NOAA Alaska Fisheries report 4pgs..pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 141
HB 10 AML Letter.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 10
HB97 Letter.doc HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 97
HB 64 AML Letter.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 64
HB164 Fosselman Testimony.pdf HFIN 3/22/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 164