Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519

03/30/2011 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
Moved CSHB 8(FIN) Out of Committee
+ HB 10 NONCOMMERCIAL TRAILER REGISTRATION FEE TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 64 PERMANENT MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 105 SOUTHEAST STATE FOREST TELECONFERENCED
Moved Out of Committee
+ HB 140 APPROP: COMMUNITY QUOTA ENTITY LOAN FUND TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ HB 141 LOANS TO COMMUNITY QUOTA ENTITIES/PERMITS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 164 INSURANCE: HEALTH CARE & OTHER TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 103 POWER PROJECT; ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 104 ALASKA PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIPS TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 120 AIDEA: NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT PROGRAM TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 121 LOAN FUNDS:CHARTERS/MARICULTURE/MICROLOAN TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 125 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ HB 150 PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE ADULTS/MINORS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      March 30, 2011                                                                                            
                         1:40 p.m.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:40:13 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 Mike Hawker (alternate)                                                                                          
Representative Reggie Joule                                                                                                     
Representative Tammie Wilson                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
None                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wes Keller,  Sponsor; James Armstrong, Staff,                                                                    
Representative   Bill  Stoltze;   Richard  Rogers,   Natural                                                                    
Resources  Specialist, Division  of Forestry,  Department of                                                                    
Natural  Resources; Ron  Wolfe,  Manager, Natural  Resources                                                                    
Manager,  Sealaska;   Shelly  Wright,   Executive  Director,                                                                    
Southeast  Conference;  John  Sandor,  Self,  Juneau;  Duane                                                                    
Mayes,   Director,  Division   of   Senior  and   Disability                                                                    
Services,  Department of  Health  and  Social Services;  Pat                                                                    
Luby,  Advocacy Director,  American Association  for Retired                                                                    
Persons;  Representative  Alan   Austerman,  Sponsor;  Steve                                                                    
Ricci, Staff, Representative  Alan Austerman; Wanetta Ayers,                                                                    
Director,  Division of  Economic Development,  Department of                                                                    
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Stuart Thompson,  Self, Mat-Su; Scott  Sterling, Supervisory                                                                    
Attorney,   Office  of   Public   Advocacy,  Department   of                                                                    
Administration;  Beth  Russo, Supervisory  Attorney,  Public                                                                    
Guardian Section,  Office of Public Advocacy,  Department of                                                                    
Administration;   Scott   Sterling,  Supervisory   Attorney,                                                                    
Office  of  Elder Fraud  and  Assistance,  Office of  Public                                                                    
Advocacy,  Department of  Administration; Brenda  Mahlatini,                                                                    
Program  Manager,  Office   of  Adult  Protective  Services,                                                                    
Division of Senior and  Disabilities Services, Department of                                                                    
Health  and  Social  Services;  Kathy  Monfreda,  Chief  and                                                                    
Criminal   Justice   Information  System   Officer   (CJIS),                                                                    
Criminal  Records and  Identification Bureau,  Department of                                                                    
Public Safety.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SUMMARY                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 8      FEDERAL REGULATIONS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          CS HB 8(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a                                                                     
          "do pass" recommendation and with new zero impact                                                                     
          fiscal note by the Department of Law.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HB 10     NONCOMMERCIAL TRAILER REGISTRATION FEE                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          HB 10 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 64     PERMANENT MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          HB 64 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 103    POWER PROJECT; ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          HB 103 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 104    ALASKA PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIPS                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          HB 104 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 105    SOUTHEAST STATE FOREST                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          HB 105 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do                                                                       
          pass" recommendation and with one previously                                                                          
          published fiscal note: FN1 (DNR).                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HB 120    AIDEA: NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT PROGRAM                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
          HB 120 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 121    LOAN FUNDS: CHARTERS/MARICULTURE/MICROLOAN                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          HB 121 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HB 125    ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
          HB 125 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 141    LOANS TO COMMUNITY QUOTA ENTITIES/PERMITS                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          HB 141 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 140    APPROP: COMMUNITY QUOTA ENTITY LOAN FUND                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
          HB 140 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 150    PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE ADULTS/MINORS                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          HB 150 was HEARD and HELD in committee for                                                                            
          further consideration.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 164    INSURANCE:  HEALTH CARE & OTHER                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          HB 164 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:40:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAMES ARMSTRONG, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,                                                                            
discussed the future committee meeting schedule.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:45:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Armstrong continued to discuss the schedule for the                                                                         
following week.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze communicated that his staff Joe Michel                                                                         
would be the point person on bills.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
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."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:48:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WES  KELLER,  SPONSOR, discussed  HB  8.  He                                                                    
opined that  the Sedition Act  of 1798 was  historically one                                                                    
of the  most unconstitutional congressional acts,  which had                                                                    
prompted the passage  of numerous "reactionary" resolutions.                                                                    
He  quoted  Thomas  Jefferson's   words  from  the  Kentucky                                                                    
Resolutions:                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Resolved,  states  composing,   the  United  States  of                                                                    
     America, are  not united on the  principle of unlimited                                                                    
     submission  to their  federal  government, but  reserve                                                                    
     each state  to itself, the  residuary mass of  right to                                                                    
     their own  self-government; and whensoever  the general                                                                    
     or federal  government assumes undelegated  powers, its                                                                    
     acts are unauthoritative, void,  and of no force...each                                                                    
     party or  each state  has an equal  right to  judge for                                                                    
     itself, and the mode and  measure of redress belongs to                                                                    
     the state [sic].                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Keller  communicated  that  the  legislation                                                                    
incorporated  the principle  from the  Kentucky Resolutions.                                                                    
He  read  from page  2,  lines  14-16: "A  federal  statute,                                                                    
regulation,  presidential  executive order,  or  secretarial                                                                    
order that  is unconstitutional or was  not properly adopted                                                                    
in accordance  with federal statutory authority  many not be                                                                    
considered  to preempt  a state  law." He  relayed that  the                                                                    
bill   required  the   attorney   general   to  notify   the                                                                    
appropriate  judiciary  committee  chairs  if  the  attorney                                                                    
general   found   that   a  federal   statute,   regulation,                                                                    
presidential  executive  order,  or  secretarial  order  was                                                                    
unconstitutional or  was not properly adopted  (page 2, line                                                                    
26). The "method, mode, or  measure of the redress" was left                                                                    
up to the  legislature. He asked the committee  to adopt the                                                                    
committee substitute.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to  ADOPT Work Draft CSHB 8(FIN)                                                                    
(27-LS0052\B,  Bullock,  3/14/11)   as  a  working  document                                                                    
before the committee.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Keller explained that  the CS added the words                                                                    
"secretarial  order" and  "federal  statute" throughout  the                                                                    
bill. He  had initially thought that  the attorney general's                                                                    
office would review all regulations  and provide a report on                                                                    
any items  that were potentially  unconstitutional; however,                                                                    
that  was not  logistically possible  for the  Department of                                                                    
Law (DOL).  He had received  positive feedback on  the bill.                                                                    
He reiterated  that DOL would  notify the legislature  if it                                                                    
became  aware of  any  federal  statute, secretarial  order,                                                                    
regulation,  or   presidential  executive  order   that  was                                                                    
potentially unconstitutional.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being NO further OBJECTION the CS was ADOPTED.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:53:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan  wondered who  would decide  whether a                                                                    
federal statute,  regulation, presidential  executive order,                                                                    
or secretarial order was unconstitutional.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Keller  responded   that  the  decision  was                                                                    
outside  the scope  of the  legislation. He  added that  the                                                                    
decision  could   be  made  by   the  U.S.   Supreme  Court,                                                                    
individuals, and  legislators who had the  responsibility of                                                                    
interpreting and understanding the U.S. Constitution.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan asked for  verification that under the                                                                    
legislation, something  would not  be considered  state law,                                                                    
if it fit  the definition in the bill and  was determined to                                                                    
be unconstitutional.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Keller  replied  that the  attorney  general                                                                    
would   make  the   determination  and   would  notify   the                                                                    
appropriate legislative chairs if  an item was determined to                                                                    
be unconstitutional.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan understood the  specific point. He did                                                                    
not understand  the comment that  individuals would  be able                                                                    
to   decide    for   themselves   whether   an    item   was                                                                    
unconstitutional.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Keller responded that  he did not believe the                                                                    
ability for a person to  decide an item was unconstitutional                                                                    
was in the scope of the bill.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan thought  it was  clear that  the bill                                                                    
did allow  the specific  ability for  a person  to determine                                                                    
whether an item was unconstitutional.  He was happy to offer                                                                    
an amendment to remove the appropriate language.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Keller  asked  about  the  precise  language                                                                    
Representative Doogan was referring to.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan  cited page  2,  lines  12-16 as  the                                                                    
specific language.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Keller responded  that  the  language was  a                                                                    
principle   and   did  not   specify   who   was  making   a                                                                    
determination   that   a    federal   statute,   regulation,                                                                    
presidential  executive  order,  or  secretarial  order  was                                                                    
unconstitutional.  He explained  the unconstitutionality  of                                                                    
an item  could be determined  in a  variety of ways,  and in                                                                    
such cases the law was deemed to be invalid.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:57:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg  wondered about the origin  of the                                                                    
language in Section 2, page 2, article 5.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Keller   asked  for  clarification   on  the                                                                    
question.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg   wondered  about   the  specific                                                                    
source of the language in Section 2.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Keller responded  that  the  wording of  the                                                                    
bill  had  come  from  Legislative Legal  Services.  He  had                                                                    
drafted  the  bill  and  had  quoted  the  words  of  Thomas                                                                    
Jefferson  during earlier  testimony;  however,  he did  not                                                                    
know the specific origin of the language.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg thought it  appeared that the bill                                                                    
put federal statute into state  law. He wondered whether the                                                                    
goal was  to preempt federal  law or  to put it  into Alaska                                                                    
statute.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Keller replied that  under the bill a federal                                                                    
law that  was unconstitutional could not  preempt state law.                                                                    
The bill  did not dictate what  would be done after  an item                                                                    
was determined  to be  unconstitutional. He  emphasized that                                                                    
the bill  did not attempt  to insert federal law  into state                                                                    
statute.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg  was   concerned  that  the  bill                                                                    
attempted  to  decide  whether a  law  was  unconstitutional                                                                    
prior to a U.S. Supreme Court case or decision.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Keller   responded    that   it   was   the                                                                    
responsibility  and  right  of  the  country's  citizens  to                                                                    
police the Constitution.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg discussed that  it was possible to                                                                    
challenge the  constitutionality of  a law  by taking  it to                                                                    
court  or through  an act  of  civil disobedience;  however,                                                                    
ultimately  it was  the U.S.  Supreme Court  that determined                                                                    
whether a law was unconstitutional.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:01:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Keller  replied that there had  been a number                                                                    
of cases where federal  law had been deemed unconstitutional                                                                    
and  invalid. He  cited  the  California "Compassionate  Use                                                                    
Act," which  had legalized  medical marijuana.  He explained                                                                    
that  U.S. Supreme  Court had  determined that  the law  was                                                                    
unconstitutional; however,  the federal government  had left                                                                    
the matter in the hands of  the state and did not attempt to                                                                    
police noncompliance in  each of the 14  states with similar                                                                    
laws.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg  agreed  with  comment  regarding                                                                    
rights of  the states. He expressed  uncertainty about other                                                                    
aspects of the bill.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked whether  the state  had adopted                                                                    
numerous  federal regulations  that  were  represented by  a                                                                    
number and  were not  written in  statute, meaning  that the                                                                    
state  did   not  always  see   the  changes  made   to  the                                                                    
regulations.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Keller  believed that the state  had too many                                                                    
references  to  federal regulations,  but  he  did not  know                                                                    
whether  the  references  were  automatically  altered  when                                                                    
changes to the regulations occurred.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked whether  the bill  required the                                                                    
state  to  review any  changes  that  were made  to  federal                                                                    
regulations that it had previously adopted.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Keller  answered   in   the  negative.   He                                                                    
clarified  that  the  bill asked  the  attorney  general  to                                                                    
notify the  legislature in the  event that an  item violated                                                                    
the state or federal Constitutions.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
STUART   THOMPSON,   SELF,  MAT-SU   (via   teleconference),                                                                    
described  himself as  a "sovereign  citizen" and  discussed                                                                    
his   support  of   HB  8.   He  believed   the  legislation                                                                    
represented a clear support and  defense of the 9th and 10th                                                                    
Amendments  of   the  United  States.  He   asked  that  the                                                                    
committee read  the written testimony  that he  had provided                                                                    
to  the  House  Judiciary  Committee.  He  stated  that  the                                                                    
legislative  oath of  office read  "I do  solemnly swear  or                                                                    
affirm that  I will support  and defend the  Constitution of                                                                    
the  United States  and  the Constitution  of  the State  of                                                                    
Alaska and  that I  will faithfully  discharge my  duties to                                                                    
the  best of  my ability."  He wondered  whether legislators                                                                    
had   specifically   supported    or   defended   the   U.S.                                                                    
Constitution   against   opposition   during   the   current                                                                    
legislative session.  He believed that the  passage of state                                                                    
law to acquire  rights for federal money did  not defend the                                                                    
Constitution;  it  used  "infrastructure  and  tradition  to                                                                    
follow a path of  least resistance to gratify constituents."                                                                    
He believed  that fighting for state  funds for legislators'                                                                    
districts did  not support or  defend the  constitution, but                                                                    
worked  to  secure  legislators'  bids  for  reelection.  He                                                                    
discussed other  items that  did not  support or  defend the                                                                    
constitution.  He opined  that  the bill  was "probably  the                                                                    
most  ethically  substantial  bill  ever  presented  to  the                                                                    
Alaska legislature." He urged the passage of the bill.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg   asked  Mr.  Thompson   for  his                                                                    
definition of "sovereign citizen."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Thompson  responded with a reference  to the Declaration                                                                    
of Independence. He  believed that people had  the right and                                                                    
obligation to implement  change if they did  not believe the                                                                    
government  was working  to  assist in  the  right to  life,                                                                    
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:08:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Edgmon asked  whether the  goal of  the bill                                                                    
was to  give Alaska  better capability  to respond  to items                                                                    
such as the recent federal  health care legislation that may                                                                    
or may not have been constitutional.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative Keller replied in  the negative. He clarified                                                                    
that  the bill  asked  the attorney  general  to notify  the                                                                    
legislature if a problem was found.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough spoke  in favor  of the  legislation.                                                                    
She  was  interested  in a  discussion  about  how  Alaskans                                                                    
advocated for their rights. She  discussed that when she had                                                                    
been  the executive  director of  Standing Together  Against                                                                    
Rape (STAR)  there were federal laws  that were inconsistent                                                                    
with State of Alaska Constitution.  She cited the Adam Walsh                                                                    
law  or  other  that  worked to  implement  a  retroactivity                                                                    
clause for  the state's  sex offender  list. The  agency had                                                                    
tried to  determine how to  bring the state  into compliance                                                                    
with the law; however, the  law was essentially in violation                                                                    
of  Alaska's constitution.  She wondered  whether the  state                                                                    
should  defend its  constitution or  align the  constitution                                                                    
with  the  federal  government.  She  thought  that  it  was                                                                    
important  to   address  the  points  of   contention  as  a                                                                    
legislative  body.  She  discussed  her  allegiance  to  the                                                                    
United  States,  the  U.S.  Constitution,  and  to  Alaska's                                                                    
constitution.  She questioned  what  should be  done in  the                                                                    
event  that  the  Constitutions  of the  United  States  and                                                                    
Alaska  conflicted with  each other.  She asked  whether the                                                                    
state  should  make changes  to  its  constitution when  the                                                                    
federal  government changed  a  law that  the  state had  no                                                                    
input in.  She acknowledged  that the  state's Congressional                                                                    
leaders  could argue  on  its behalf,  but  she thought  the                                                                    
state  should also  have  a voice.  She  supported the  bill                                                                    
because it  helped to address  Alaskans' right  to challenge                                                                    
items that  were not in  the state's best interest  and were                                                                    
in violation with the state's constitution.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:13:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan believed that the  goal was to get the                                                                    
attorney  general to  let legislators  know  when a  federal                                                                    
action  was potentially  unconstitutional  or would  preempt                                                                    
state  law. He  thought that  amending the  bill to  include                                                                    
only Section  4 would achieve  the sponsor's goal;  it would                                                                    
also eliminate  other concerns about  a person's  ability to                                                                    
assert  authority that  they did  not have.  He thought  the                                                                    
amendment would do everything in  a practical sense that the                                                                    
legislation sought out to do.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan offered a  conceptual Amendment 1 that                                                                    
maintained only Sections 4 and 5 of the CS.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze  asked for verification that  the amendment                                                                    
would delete the findings and Sections 1 through 3.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan answered in the affirmative.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough OBJECTED.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough did not  understand the purpose of the                                                                    
amendment.  She  asked  why  the  findings  and  Sections  1                                                                    
through 3 of the bill were objectionable.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan  did  not understand  the  particular                                                                    
sections.  He believed  that the  sections did  not have  an                                                                    
impact on  anything that  the bill  aimed to  accomplish. He                                                                    
thought the language  represented a philosophical statement;                                                                    
the committee was not in  the habit of passing philosophical                                                                    
statements  with the  exception of  resolutions. He  did not                                                                    
know why the  legislature would put something  into law that                                                                    
did not have  an impact on the law. He  communicated that he                                                                    
did not feel comfortable with  the inclusion of the language                                                                    
if it  did impact the law,  given that he did  not know what                                                                    
the impact was.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wes   Keller  was   not  in  favor   of  the                                                                    
conceptual amendment.  He would  have been "shocked"  if the                                                                    
bill  had included  language specifying  that a  federal law                                                                    
would  preempt  state law  even  when  it  was found  to  be                                                                    
unconstitutional.  He  explained  that the  language  was  a                                                                    
statement of  "what is." He  thought the  federal government                                                                    
had  recently  overstepped   or  potentially  overstepped  a                                                                    
number of  times. He thought  the inclusion of  the language                                                                    
was important for the context of the bill.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan believed  that the problematic portion                                                                    
of  the bill  made statements  that were  not attributed  to                                                                    
anybody. He cited  language in Section 2 that  referred to a                                                                    
federal  statute  or  other that  was  unconstitutional.  He                                                                    
wondered  how   to  judge  what  was   unconstitutional.  He                                                                    
surmised  that  the specific  language  was  referring to  a                                                                    
violation   of  the   federal  Constitution.   He  was   not                                                                    
comfortable  asserting   that  violations  of   the  federal                                                                    
Constitution were  happening or  with a  law that  allowed a                                                                    
person  to  determine  an   item  was  unconstitutional  and                                                                    
therefore invalid. He did not support the language.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze  opposed   the  conceptual  amendment.  He                                                                    
thought  the  bill  started a  committee  process  when  the                                                                    
attorney  general notified  the legislature  that a  problem                                                                    
existed.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:21:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Hawker   requested  that   the   conceptual                                                                    
amendment be clearly restated.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Doogan   explained  that   the   conceptual                                                                    
Amendment  1  began on  page  1,  line  5 and  would  delete                                                                    
Sections  1, 2,  and  3. The  sections  would be  renumbered                                                                    
accordingly and the title would be changed as necessary.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Costello  surmised that the bill  provided an                                                                    
avenue for DOL  to communicate with the  legislature when an                                                                    
unconstitutional federal item occurred.  She had heard about                                                                    
departmental budget increases that  had happened in response                                                                    
to some of the items. She  wondered what the next step would                                                                    
be after  the attorney  general brought  an unconstitutional                                                                    
item  to the  attention  of the  legislature. She  discussed                                                                    
that if  the item  was egregious  enough that  the executive                                                                    
branch  of  the  State  of  Alaska  would  sue  the  federal                                                                    
government.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Keller   replied   that  he   had   thought                                                                    
significantly  about the  next step;  however, there  was no                                                                    
way  to outline  it  in statute  due to  the  wide scope  of                                                                    
potential   responses.  The   language   that  allowed   the                                                                    
legislature  to consider  information it  received from  DOL                                                                    
would be  deleted in the  proposed conceptual  amendment. He                                                                    
believed that  rights of the  state were one step  away from                                                                    
rights of the  individual and there was  a responsibility to                                                                    
protect their sovereignty. He  stressed that the legislature                                                                    
needed to work with the  administrative branch, given that a                                                                    
law  suit initiated  by the  administrative branch  would be                                                                    
funded by  the legislature. He  thought the bill  helped all                                                                    
branches of  state government to  be informed and a  part of                                                                    
the process.  He opined that  the alignment may  have helped                                                                    
the  state in  the process  related to  the current  federal                                                                    
health care bill.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Costello  asked whether Sections 1  through 3                                                                    
that would  be deleted by  the amendment, were  necessary to                                                                    
lead up to and explain the core of the bill in Section 4.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Keller  answered that the without  Sections 1                                                                    
through   3  there   was  no   context  to   understand  the                                                                    
legislative  intent of  the bill.  He did  not believe  that                                                                    
there was  anything fundamentally  wrong with  including the                                                                    
language. He noted that there would  not be much left in the                                                                    
bill if language that read "may be done" was deleted.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough had  looked  at all  of the  statutes                                                                    
that the bill would impact.  Section 2 inserted AS 44.23.020                                                                    
after  the statehood  act  (Section 1  of  the statute)  and                                                                    
asked the legislature to look at  the laws. Section 3 of the                                                                    
bill  (AS  24.05.188),  was  inserted  under  Article  5  as                                                                    
legislative space. Section 4 of  the bill was inserted under                                                                    
DOL  related  to  the  duties and  powers  of  the  attorney                                                                    
general's  office. She  explained  that  the three  sections                                                                    
supported AS 44.23.020 and did not change other law.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:28:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Edgmon  referenced language in the  bill that                                                                    
read "the attorney general shall  report the findings to the                                                                    
chairs   of  the   house   and   senate  committees   having                                                                    
jurisdiction  over judicial  matters."  He wondered  whether                                                                    
the  language  compromised  the options  that  the  attorney                                                                    
general  may have  if he  or she  wanted to  pursue a  legal                                                                    
remedy.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Keller  replied that DOL had  not brought the                                                                    
concern forward.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Joule  discussed that  the bill  mandated the                                                                    
attorney general  (who worked  for the  governor) to  take a                                                                    
specific  action.  He  opined   that  individuals  may  have                                                                    
problems with the current federal  administration, but in 10                                                                    
or 20  years the shoe  would be on  the other foot.  He felt                                                                    
neutral about the bill, but  cautioned that it was important                                                                    
for  a  person to  be  careful  about  what they  asked  for                                                                    
because it may come to fruition.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Keller  believed   that  regardless   of  a                                                                    
person's  political  affiliation,  he  would  welcome  their                                                                    
concern about a bill that was potentially unconstitutional.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Hawker  was   opposed  to   the  conceptual                                                                    
amendment. He  voiced that historically  he had  opposed the                                                                    
inclusion of  findings in statute  because they  were either                                                                    
irrelevant  or did  not provide  the appropriate  contextual                                                                    
framework. He  communicated that  he felt  differently about                                                                    
the  current legislation  and believed  that the  conceptual                                                                    
amendment   would  remove   findings  that   represented  an                                                                    
important  factual  basis for  the  context  of the  statute                                                                    
change. He opined that removing  the findings would have led                                                                    
to  greater ambiguity.  He believed  that  Section 2,  which                                                                    
affirmed the  state's sovereignty, was the  "heart and soul"                                                                    
of  the bill.  He advised  that  the language  in Section  2                                                                    
related  to the  unconstitutionality  of an  item, stated  a                                                                    
fact, and was  based on the opinion of  the attorney general                                                                    
or  another  person.  The  implementation  of  the  findings                                                                    
occurred  under  Sections 3  and  4.  He believed  that  the                                                                    
legislation  went as  far as  possible in  an effective  and                                                                    
responsible manner.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:34:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg observed that  the sections of the                                                                    
Alaska constitution that had been  adopted by the convention                                                                    
were  very   succinct.  He  felt  that   amendments  to  the                                                                    
constitution and  statute could get convoluted.  He believed                                                                    
that Section 4  of the bill included many of  the same items                                                                    
from Sections  1, 2,  and 3; Section  4 outlined  the action                                                                    
that would take place if  the attorney general found an item                                                                    
to  be  unconstitutional.  He discussed  that  the  attorney                                                                    
general  did  not  need legislative  approval  to  challenge                                                                    
federal law,  which was  evident in  current actions  by the                                                                    
governor.  He  believed  that  Sections  1  through  3  were                                                                    
redundant and  contained the same points  that were depicted                                                                    
in Section 4;  the sections were not as focused  and did not                                                                    
provide  a  specific  action. He  supported  the  idea  that                                                                    
legislative  committees would  receive  reports about  items                                                                    
that were potentially unconstitutional.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  wondered  whether  the  sponsor  had                                                                    
asked the  offices of the  attorney general or  the governor                                                                    
about their opinion on the  importance of Sections 1 through                                                                    
3 of the bill.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Keller  replied that they had  heard from the                                                                    
offices  at the  House  Judiciary Committee  hearing on  the                                                                    
legislation. There  had been concern that  the original bill                                                                    
required the attorney  general's office to catch  all of the                                                                    
unconstitutional regulations,  which was  a larger  job than                                                                    
the office  was prepared to  handle. He had spoken  with the                                                                    
attorney general and had received no negative response.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked whether  in the absence  of the                                                                    
legislation, it  would not  be a  priority for  the attorney                                                                    
general's office to look  for the potential unconstitutional                                                                    
items.  She wanted  the office  to catch  any federal  items                                                                    
that were  potentially unconstitutional and  that conflicted                                                                    
with  the  state's  constitution;   she  believed  that  the                                                                    
attorney  general and  the legislature  were mandated  to do                                                                    
so. She wondered  whether the sponsor believed  the bill was                                                                    
necessary to ensure that the desired outcome was met.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Keller  responded  in  the  affirmative.  He                                                                    
explained that  the attorney general's office  currently may                                                                    
not  realize  that  the  legislature  should  be  officially                                                                    
notified when it came  across a potentially unconstitutional                                                                    
item.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan wrapped  up his  conceptual Amendment                                                                    
1. He  believed that  the language in  Sections 1  through 3                                                                    
was not necessary if it did  not do anything; however, if it                                                                    
did  do  something,  he believed  that  the  active  portion                                                                    
related  to a  person's view  that an  item in  violation of                                                                    
federal statute or  the Constitution would not  be state law                                                                    
(page  2,  lines  15-16).  He felt  that  the  language  was                                                                    
"nullification  language"  and  he   was  not  in  favor  of                                                                    
supporting  a  bill  that would  allow  the  legislature  to                                                                    
nullify   the  U.S.   Constitution  or   federal  law.   The                                                                    
legislature could  dispute federal law and  he had generally                                                                    
supported the  action. He believed  HB 8 was  something more                                                                    
than a dispute and allowed  anyone who opposed something the                                                                    
federal   government    did   to   decide   that    it   was                                                                    
unconstitutional or a  violation of federal law.  He did not                                                                    
support the aspect of the legislation.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze  clarified that the amendment  would delete                                                                    
all but Sections 4 and 5 of the legislation.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote  was taken  on the  motion  to adopt  the                                                                    
conceptual Amendment 1.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
IN FAVOR: Doogan, Guttenberg                                                                                                    
OPPOSED:  Costello,   Edgmon,  Fairclough,   Joule,  Hawker,                                                                    
Wilson, Stoltze, Thomas                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION FAILED (8/2).                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze pointed  to the  zero fiscal  note by  the                                                                    
Department of Law.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough MOVED  to report  CSHB 8(FIN)  out of                                                                    
committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal note.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson  relayed  that the  fiscal  note  was                                                                    
indeterminate.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that  the fiscal note had changed                                                                    
from indeterminate to zero.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken on the  motion to report  CS HB                                                                    
8(FIN) from committee.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
IN  FAVOR:  Wilson,  Costello,  Edgmon,  Fairclough,  Joule,                                                                    
Hawker, Thomas, Stoltze, Gara                                                                                                   
OPPOSED: Doogan, Guttenberg                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The MOTION  PASSED (9/2). There  being NO  further OBJECTION                                                                    
it was so ordered.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CSHB 8(FIN) was  REPORTED out of committee with  a "do pass"                                                                    
recommendation and with  new zero impact fiscal  note by the                                                                    
Department of Law.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:47:47 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:48:22 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 105                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to the Southeast State Forest; and                                                                        
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:48:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD  ROGERS, NATURAL  RESOURCES SPECIALIST,  DIVISION OF                                                                    
FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT  OF NATURAL  RESOURCES (DNR),  spoke in                                                                    
support of  HB 105. He  detailed that  the bill was  part of                                                                    
the state's  effort to ensure  that local  timber processing                                                                    
continued to be a part  of the Southeast Alaska economy. The                                                                    
majority  of  timber in  southern  Southeast  Alaska was  on                                                                    
federal  land,  but  federal timber  sales  had  drastically                                                                    
declined. Local  sawmills heavily  depended on  state timber                                                                    
for survival.  He relayed that  the Southeast  timber demand                                                                    
for  energy  had  been   increasing,  which  heightened  the                                                                    
importance of a secure timber  base for the region. The wood                                                                    
pellet  boiler  that  had recently  been  installed  in  the                                                                    
Sealaska  Corporation's   Juneau  building   illustrated  an                                                                    
increased movement towards the  commercial usage of wood for                                                                    
energy.  A  25,291  acre Southeast  State  Forest  had  been                                                                    
established in June  2010 as a result of the  passage of SCS                                                                    
HB  162(RES).  An additional  23,181  acres  of state  lands                                                                    
available for  timber harvest would  be added  the Southeast                                                                    
State  Forest  if  HB  105  became  law.  Consequently,  the                                                                    
Division of  Forestry would be  able to manage  the combined                                                                    
48,472 acres for a long-term  timber supply and would retain                                                                    
the lands  in state ownership  for multiple uses.  The lands                                                                    
would be managed as an  integrated unit according to a state                                                                    
forest  management plan  that would  be developed  through a                                                                    
public  process during  the following  two years.  The state                                                                    
forest designation  would ensure that the  productive forest                                                                    
lands would  remain in state ownership  and would contribute                                                                    
to the  long-term viability of  the timber based  economy in                                                                    
Southeast.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Rogers   discussed  that  in  2009   the  prior  forest                                                                    
inventory for the  lands had been updated by  DNR to include                                                                    
forest  management intent  language  per  the region's  area                                                                    
plans.   The   data   provided   the   required   supporting                                                                    
information regarding timber  volume, acreage, and allowable                                                                    
harvest.   The  allowable   harvest   for   the  lands   was                                                                    
approximately  8.3   million  board   feet  per   year.  The                                                                    
department  managed   over  150,000  acres  of   uplands  in                                                                    
southern Southeast Alaska; the state actively managed one-                                                                      
third of  the land  and supplied  wood to  local processors.                                                                    
The remaining  land was designated for  other uses including                                                                    
land  sales,  recreation,  water  resources,  and  fish  and                                                                    
wildlife  habitat   that  included  over  65,000   acres  of                                                                    
legislatively  designated state  marine  parks and  critical                                                                    
habitat  areas. He  voiced that  adding lands  to the  state                                                                    
forest would ensure that the  state's more suitable lands in                                                                    
Southeast  remained   available  for  contribution   to  the                                                                    
state's ongoing  timber sale program. A  significant portion                                                                    
of  the  state-owned  timberland  in  Southeast  Alaska  was                                                                    
inherited from the U.S. Forest  Service and was comprised of                                                                    
young, second-growth  stands. Compared to  unmanaged second-                                                                    
growth   stands,  actively   managed  second-growth   stands                                                                    
provided more  timber volume per  acre on  shorter rotations                                                                    
and could  result in improved  "deer browse." A  thinning of                                                                    
state lands  would increase timber yield  and timber supply.                                                                    
He elaborated  that thinning was a  long-term investment and                                                                    
was only  justified if  the land  continued to  be available                                                                    
for forest management. Timber sales  from the lands would be                                                                    
a mix  of domestic  and round log  export based  on economic                                                                    
conditions and locations. A 1984  U.S. Supreme Court Case of                                                                    
South-Central   Timber  Development   vs.  the   former  DNR                                                                    
commissioner  Esther Wunnicke,  established  that the  state                                                                    
could not  restrict round log  export due  to interpretation                                                                    
of the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:53:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Rogers furthered  that the division had done  a good job                                                                    
encouraging local  manufacturing of  logs from  state timber                                                                    
sales in spite  of the legal constraints. He  stated that 87                                                                    
percent  of the  timber sold  from state  lands in  southern                                                                    
Southeast  over the  past six  years had  been processed  by                                                                    
Alaska manufacturers.  The proposed  additions to  the state                                                                    
forest included 23  parcels that were outlined  in a handout                                                                    
(copy on file).  Approximately 21 percent of  the lands were                                                                    
from 5 parcels  that had been previously  reserved pending a                                                                    
prior  legislative  attempt to  transfer  the  lands to  the                                                                    
University  of Alaska.  The legislation  had not  passed and                                                                    
the lands were freed for  the long-term forest management in                                                                    
the state  forest. The  bill included  general use  lands on                                                                    
the   Islands  of   Prince  of   Wales,  Tuxekan,   Gravina,                                                                    
Kosciusko,  Revillagigedo, Wrangell,  Suemez, Mitkof,  Kuiu,                                                                    
Dall, and Zarembo. Six of  the parcels were adjacent or near                                                                    
existing state forest parcels.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Rogers  communicated that the  Division of  Forestry had                                                                    
worked  with the  Division  of Mining,  Land,  and Water  to                                                                    
identify  and exclude  lands that  were  priorities for  the                                                                    
state  land disposal  program. Additionally,  a consultation                                                                    
had been  initiated with the University  of Alaska Statewide                                                                    
Office  of  Land  Management and  university  officials.  He                                                                    
explained  that an  important difference  between the  state                                                                    
forest designation  and a transfer  of lands related  to the                                                                    
long-term public  ownership of  the lands compared  to other                                                                    
development  uses,  as  had been  contemplated  under  prior                                                                    
university  legislation.  Through  a consultation  with  the                                                                    
Department of Fish and Game  (DFG), the division had ensured                                                                    
that there  was internal alignment  on the list  of parcels.                                                                    
Several other parcels had been  considered in the division's                                                                    
due diligence;  however, they had not  been included because                                                                    
of known concerns or the potential for high controversy.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Rogers   continued  to   discuss  reasons   behind  the                                                                    
division's support of the legislation.  He relayed that fish                                                                    
habitat and water quality were  key components of the Forest                                                                    
Resources  and Practices  Act, which  included  a series  of                                                                    
regulations  that  would  apply  to the  management  of  the                                                                    
parcels. Stream buffers had a  no-cut 100 foot minimum width                                                                    
on  anadromous and  high-value  resident  fish streams;  the                                                                    
next 100 foot  to 300 foot zone could  allow timber harvest,                                                                    
but consistent  activity was  necessary for  the maintenance                                                                    
of important  fish and wildlife  habitat. He  discussed that                                                                    
area plans provided  for coastal buffers of 300  feet to 500                                                                    
feet  and   had  additional  recommendations   for  specific                                                                    
parcels. During  the development  of the management  plan, a                                                                    
significant consideration for the  Neets Bay parcel would be                                                                    
the maintenance of  water quality and quantity  for the fish                                                                    
hatchery operation at  the head of the bay.  He relayed that                                                                    
there had  been an  ongoing dialog about  the bill  with the                                                                    
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Rogers  discussed that the Southeast  State Forest would                                                                    
be managed  as a part  of the  state forest system  under AS                                                                    
41.17.200 through AS 41.17.230.  He read from subsection (a)                                                                    
of AS 41.17.200:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     The  primary  purpose  in the  establishment  of  state                                                                    
     forests  is timber  management  that  provides for  the                                                                    
     production,  utilization, and  replenishment of  timber                                                                    
     resources  while  allowing  other  beneficial  uses  of                                                                    
     public land and resources.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Rogers  detailed that in  addition to  timber management                                                                    
that  state forests  were open  to multiple  uses including,                                                                    
wildlife  habitat  and   harvest,  mineral  exploration  and                                                                    
development, transportation, recreation,  and tourism. State                                                                    
forest   lands  would   be  managed   consistent  with   the                                                                    
management intent  under the current Prince  of Wales Island                                                                    
and Central Southeast area plans.  He expounded that changes                                                                    
to management  intent would  require public  and interagency                                                                    
review  through the  adoption of  a State  Forest Management                                                                    
Plan under AS 41.17.230.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Rogers highlighted  that one  of the  other demands  on                                                                    
state  land  in  southern  Southeast  was  to  fulfill  land                                                                    
entitlements  for  new  municipalities. In  order  to  avoid                                                                    
conflict  with  the  Wrangell borough  entitlement,  HB  105                                                                    
specified  that the  new Wrangell  borough may  select state                                                                    
forest  land  within  the  borough  boundary.  The  boundary                                                                    
encompassed  three  parcels  in the  existing  state  forest                                                                    
(Crittenden  Creek and  Bradfield Canal  East and  West) and                                                                    
four  parcels  in  the bill's  proposed  additions  (Eastern                                                                    
Passage, Pat Creek, Pat Creek  uplands, and Earl West Cove).                                                                    
Lands that were vacant,  unappropriated, or unreserved prior                                                                    
to the establishment  of the state forest  would be included                                                                    
in  the calculation  of  the  municipal entitlement  acreage                                                                    
(but  may not  be  selected),  if additional  municipalities                                                                    
were incorporated before June 30, 2019.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:57:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Rogers noted that DNR  had briefed many statewide groups                                                                    
and  entities  across  Southeast  Alaska  on  the  proposal,                                                                    
including  the  Board  of  Forestry,  SE  Conference,  local                                                                    
governments, and the various  groups that were participating                                                                    
in the  Tongass Futures  Roundtable. Letters of  support had                                                                    
been  received  from the  following  entities: the  City  of                                                                    
Coffman  Cove, Resource  Development Council,  Alaska Forest                                                                    
Association,  Alaska  Chapter  of the  Society  of  American                                                                    
Foresters,   Southeast   Conference,   Juneau   Chamber   of                                                                    
Commerce,  and   George  Woodbury  (Wrangell   resident  and                                                                    
forestry consultant).                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara asked whether  any sport, commercial, or                                                                    
other fishing organizations had taken  a position on HB 105.                                                                    
Mr.  Rogers did  not believe  that any  fishing organization                                                                    
had taken a position on the bill.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  wondered there would be  stream buffers                                                                    
in addition  to the  no-logging buffer zone  of 300  feet to                                                                    
500  feet that  would  exist along  some  coastal areas.  He                                                                    
asked whether only the forestry  act rules would apply or if                                                                    
there would be special rules on stream buffers.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Rogers   responded  that   the  Forest   Resources  and                                                                    
Practices Act  rules required  a 100  foot no-cut  buffer on                                                                    
each side  of both  anadromous and high-value  resident fish                                                                    
streams. There was  an additional 100 foot to  300 foot area                                                                    
of special  consideration where trees could  be harvested if                                                                    
it  could be  demonstrated that  there would  be no  adverse                                                                    
impact to the resources.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  queried whether  any of the  areas were                                                                    
in high value fishing streams.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Rogers  answered that  most  state,  federal, or  other                                                                    
lands  in   Southeast  had  high-value  fish   streams.  The                                                                    
division  worked closely  with DFG  to catalog  fish streams                                                                    
and  to  identify salmon  streams  that  may not  have  been                                                                    
included in  the official catalog; the  information was used                                                                    
to design  timber sales and to  protect fisheries resources.                                                                    
He   discussed  that   the  Neets   Bay  parcel   housed  an                                                                    
aquaculture  hatchery.   The  division  had  met   with  the                                                                    
hatchery staff; it would consider  the resources through the                                                                    
state's   forest  management   planning   process  and   the                                                                    
individual timber sale process.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:00:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  wanted to be assured  that streams with                                                                    
important fish  habitat had buffer  zones that  exceeded 100                                                                    
feet.  His biggest  concern was  that the  minimum 100  foot                                                                    
buffers could  blow down in  windfall and were  sometimes up                                                                    
to three trees deep.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Rogers replied that with  or without the bill, the lands                                                                    
inside  and  outside the  state  forest  were available  for                                                                    
timber  harvest and  subject to  the  same forest  practices                                                                    
rule  and planning  guidelines. Consideration  was given  to                                                                    
site specific  circumstances and  in some  cases protections                                                                    
may  have  exceeded  the statutory  requirements.  A  robust                                                                    
"effectiveness monitoring" program  existed under the forest                                                                    
practices  act and  the division  had done  research on  the                                                                    
effectiveness  of stream  buffers  in  conjunction with  the                                                                    
Department  of   Environmental  Conservation,  Environmental                                                                    
Protection  Agency,  Sealaska  Corporation, and  other  land                                                                    
owners. The  protection of fisheries  and water  quality was                                                                    
taken very seriously  and was factored into  the program for                                                                    
lands inside and outside of the state forest.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  wondered why the bill  was necessary if                                                                    
the areas could  already be logged and  were currently under                                                                    
the same buffer zones.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Rogers replied that the  bill established that the state                                                                    
was dedicated to  a long-term commitment and  tenure for the                                                                    
(new  growth to  growth to  harvesting) tree  cycle. With  a                                                                    
dedicated land base  that was not likely to  be disposed of,                                                                    
transferred to  a municipal government, or  used for another                                                                    
purpose, foresters would have the  ability to take the long-                                                                    
view, make  the necessary  investments, maximize  the growth                                                                    
on  the  lands  to  maximize yield,  and  provide  the  most                                                                    
economic benefit with the smallest footprint.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative Guttenberg wondered  what differences existed                                                                    
between state land and a  state forest that operated under a                                                                    
management plan.  He understood  that the state  lands would                                                                    
be designated  for inclusion in  the Southeast  State Forest                                                                    
and  because the  forest was  relatively new  there had  not                                                                    
been the opportunity to develop  a management plan through a                                                                    
public process.  He thought the management  plan process was                                                                    
effective and would serve multiple segments of the state.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Rogers  responded that a  planning process  called "area                                                                    
plans" currently  existed for all  state land. The  lands in                                                                    
the Prince  of Wales  and the  Central Southeast  area plans                                                                    
were  in  a  "general  use"  classification  that  specified                                                                    
allowable uses, including forestry.  For a state forest, the                                                                    
area  plans  would   be  in  place  until   a  state  forest                                                                    
management  plan was  written. The  state forest  plan would                                                                    
have  similar elements,  but would  be more  focused because                                                                    
the  timeframe  would be  longer-term  and  the lands  would                                                                    
emphasize  forestry  use. He  explained  that  an area  plan                                                                    
typically  had a  shelf-life of  approximately 10  years; it                                                                    
could  be general  use  for  a decade  and  could change  to                                                                    
something  else   under  a  new   plan.  The   state  forest                                                                    
management  plans could  also be  modified, but  the primary                                                                    
forestry emphasis and multiple-use would not be modified.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Thomas believed  that Senator  Lisa Murkowski  had                                                                    
started the Southeast State Forest  to subsidize the loss of                                                                    
federal timber for the small  timber mills that remained. He                                                                    
noted  that the  Alaska Forest  Resources and  Practices Act                                                                    
was  a  result  of  solicitation  to  former  Representative                                                                    
Adelheid  Herrmann  by  village and  regional  corporations.                                                                    
Representative  Herrmann  had   created  a  task-force  that                                                                    
passed the  Act in  a vote of  25 to 23.  He added  that the                                                                    
regional  and village  corporations  had  requested the  Act                                                                    
because they  had been criticized  for logging too  close to                                                                    
streams.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:08:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RON  WOLFE, MANAGER,  NATURAL  RESOURCES MANAGER,  SEALASKA,                                                                    
supported HB 105.  He discussed that the  population in most                                                                    
of the  villages and communities  in Southeast  had declined                                                                    
in  the  past  decade.  He relayed  that  populations  would                                                                    
continue to decrease and referred  to statistics included in                                                                    
his written  testimony (copy  on file).  Population declines                                                                    
adversely  impacted  property  values,   the  ability  of  a                                                                    
community to operate  basic items such as  schools, fuel and                                                                    
grocery  delivery,   transportation,  and   other  essential                                                                    
services. He emphasized  the need for all  of the industries                                                                    
in  Southeast  for survival  and  believed  that the  timber                                                                    
industry was a "mere shadow  of itself." The timber industry                                                                    
had changed  and currently the  timber supply came  from the                                                                    
Sealaska  Corporation,  the  Tongass  National  Forest,  the                                                                    
State of Alaska, and other  private landowners. He discussed                                                                    
that  the groups  depended on  each other  to create  enough                                                                    
"critical  mass  to hang  on,"  and  used the  same  logging                                                                    
contractors,  fuel  suppliers,  tug  operators,  and  entire                                                                    
infrastructure to support Southeast Alaska.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Wolfe  relayed  that  timber  sales  from  state  lands                                                                    
designated as  state forest  under the  bill, would  help to                                                                    
support  existing domestic  manufacture and  potential round                                                                    
log export.  Both markets were  important; round  log export                                                                    
could potentially  provide higher  revenues that  would make                                                                    
timber  sales  economic  and wood  designated  for  the  few                                                                    
remaining  domestic  sawmills   helped  their  survival.  He                                                                    
recapped  that  the  industry had  changed  and  that  those                                                                    
involved depended  on each other. He  disputed concerns that                                                                    
round  log  exportation  exported  jobs and  referred  to  a                                                                    
related McDowell Group report  that had been commissioned by                                                                    
Sealaska Corporation  (copy on  file). The report  had found                                                                    
that  round log  export and  domestic manufacturing  created                                                                    
the same number  of jobs on a per million  board foot basis.                                                                    
Jobs  related to  round  log export  came  from a  different                                                                    
source  and tended  to  be  in villages  that  did not  have                                                                    
sawmills,  which  made  the  employment  very  important  to                                                                    
communities such as  Kake, Hydaburg, and other.  In order to                                                                    
work,  individuals had  to move  to villages  with sawmills,                                                                    
such as  Craig and  Klawock. Domestic jobs  tended to  be on                                                                    
stevedoring,   sort-yard   manufacture,    and   other.   He                                                                    
reiterated  the   corporation's  support  for  HB   105.  He                                                                    
believed that the  reasons provided by Mr.  Rogers helped to                                                                    
explain why  the commitment of  a state forest  base allowed                                                                    
future  investment  and  provided  certainty  for  long-term                                                                    
planning related to forest management.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson wondered whether  it had become easier                                                                    
or  more  difficult  to  log  federal  grounds  for  use  in                                                                    
sawmills in Southeast.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Wolfe  replied  that  the   situation  in  the  Tongass                                                                    
National   Forest   was   not  good.   He   explained   that                                                                    
approximately 87  percent of  Southeast Alaska's  23 million                                                                    
acre land base did not  allow development and was designated                                                                    
as park,  roadless, or  wilderness lands.  Development could                                                                    
only  occur on  the  remaining area  provided that  resource                                                                    
protection  was   achieved,  including  the   Alaska  Forest                                                                    
Resources  and   Practices  Act,  Tongass   National  Forest                                                                    
management  plan,  the  Clean  Water  Act,  the  Bald  Eagle                                                                    
Protection Act,  and more. The  remaining 13 percent  of the                                                                    
Southeast acreage  supported the timber industry.  He opined                                                                    
that  people   in  Southeast  were   becoming  "conservation                                                                    
refugees."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:15:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  asked  whether the  no-logging  buffer                                                                    
zone  along stream  banks was  different  for private  lands                                                                    
than for public lands under  the Alaska Forest Resources and                                                                    
Practices Act. Mr. Wolfe replied in the affirmative.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara wondered  what the  buffer zone  was on                                                                    
private  lands. Mr.  Wolfe responded  that the  private land                                                                    
buffer zone  started with a  66 foot no-harvest  buffer, but                                                                    
when necessary the act allowed a more stringent standard.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  queried  whether  the  more  stringent                                                                    
standard came as  a result of negotiation  or a requirement.                                                                    
Mr.  Wolfe   answered  that   the  stringent   standard  was                                                                    
determined through negotiation.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara wondered why  the corporation would ever                                                                    
agree  if the  state  proposed a  broader  buffer zone.  Mr.                                                                    
Wolfe explained  that the  Act allowed  the land  manager on                                                                    
the ground to make decisions  with the agencies. He detailed                                                                    
that a  wider zone may have  been a segment of  a negotiated                                                                    
process  that would  allow variation  harvest within  the 66                                                                    
foot buffer zone.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara asked whether  Sealaska would ever agree                                                                    
to  a request  from the  state that  would broaden  a buffer                                                                    
zone to protect a fish stream.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Wolfe replied  that he could not answer  the question in                                                                    
a  committee  hearing.  He described  that  in  relation  to                                                                    
stream protection  the Act allowed  decisions to be  made in                                                                    
the field with  professionals on the ground,  which was more                                                                    
desirable than  a cookie cutter  approach that  prescribed a                                                                    
minimum  buffer  zone.  He  opined  that  whoever  had  told                                                                    
Representative  Gara that  100 foot  buffers tended  to blow                                                                    
down was incorrect. Sealaska had  worked in conjunction with                                                                    
federal and  state agencies and  had approximately  20 years                                                                    
of  data based  on repeat  observations of  the same  stream                                                                    
that verified the effectiveness  of the Act buffer standards                                                                    
related to fish habitat protection.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  remarked  that there  was  established                                                                    
peer  reviewed literature  that indicated  the tendency  for                                                                    
small  buffer-zones to  blow  down in  high  wind areas.  He                                                                    
believed that the shade provided  by strong buffer-zones was                                                                    
important  for  fry,  smolt,  and   adult  fish.  Mr.  Wolfe                                                                    
responded  that  they  would respectfully  disagree  on  the                                                                    
point.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Thomas  had been involved as  a village corporation                                                                    
president and  explained that compensation was  not received                                                                    
for the loss of timber on  any private lands that were given                                                                    
to  the state.  He  did  not think  that  many people  would                                                                    
devote  66  feet of  their  land  along  a lake,  river,  or                                                                    
stream.  Selective  cutting  of  trees was  allowed  with  a                                                                    
forest  manager or  forester and  large trees  in danger  of                                                                    
blowing down could be worth $60,000.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:21:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SHELLY  WRIGHT,  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,  SOUTHEAST  CONFERENCE,                                                                    
spoke in  support of  HB 105. She  quoted a  proclamation by                                                                    
President Roosevelt:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     And now, first and foremost  you can never forget for a                                                                    
     moment what  is the object  of our forest  policy. That                                                                    
     is  not  to  preserve  the  forests  because  they  are                                                                    
     beautiful, though  that is good in  itself, not because                                                                    
     they  are  refuges  for  the   wild  creatures  of  the                                                                    
     wilderness, though that  too is good in  of itself; but                                                                    
     the primary  object of our  forest policy, as  the land                                                                    
     policy of  the United  States, is making  of prosperous                                                                    
     homes. It  is part  of the  traditional policy  of home                                                                    
     making in our country.  Every other consideration comes                                                                    
     as  secondary. You  yourselves have  got  to keep  this                                                                    
     practical object before your  minds; to remember that a                                                                    
     forest  which   contributes  nothing  to   the  wealth,                                                                    
     progress or safety of the  country is of no interest to                                                                    
     the government and should be  of little interest to the                                                                    
     forester.  Your  attention  must  be  directed  to  the                                                                    
     preservation of the forests, not  an end in itself, but                                                                    
     as a means of preserving  and increasing the prosperity                                                                    
     of the nation.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Wright read from her personal testimony:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     The communities  in Southeast Alaska are  struggling to                                                                    
     survive. Part of the struggle  is a lack of jobs. There                                                                    
     used  to  be  a  timber industry  in  our  region  that                                                                    
     supported  our  communities...people had  wage  earning                                                                    
     jobs  and   financial  support  for  our   schools  and                                                                    
     infrastructure. We  depended on  this for  security and                                                                    
     for  our future.  Now our  industry is  almost gone...I                                                                    
     have been  told the timber  industry is a thing  of the                                                                    
     past...but  recently I  read an  article in  the Juneau                                                                    
     Empire    that    gave    me   indications    to    the                                                                    
     contrary...Seems the State  of Alaska's retirement fund                                                                    
     officials  are   looking  at  investing  in   a  timber                                                                    
     industry  in the  lower 48...to  make the  Alaska State                                                                    
     retirement  fund  more  secure they  are  investing  in                                                                    
     Timber  in the  Southeastern states  from Texas  to the                                                                    
     Carolinas...while  we sit  on 17  million acres  of the                                                                    
     Tongass National  Forest. That tells me  we are missing                                                                    
     the mark here in our  region. This state forest will be                                                                    
     a small way to stabilize  our investments in the future                                                                    
     of  our   communities.  Allowing  the  State   to  have                                                                    
     designated  lands to  manage  for  timber harvest  will                                                                    
     give  our  local  mills  a  little  more  security  and                                                                    
     therefore maybe be able to  employ a few more folks. We                                                                    
     are down  to one medium  sized mill on Prince  of Wales                                                                    
     Island and  9 or  10 mom and  pop mills  throughout the                                                                    
     region  that  rely  on  the bigger  mills  to  stay  in                                                                    
     business. We  are encouraged by the  progress the state                                                                    
     department  of  forestry  has made  with  its  industry                                                                    
     development  and with  the partnership  they have  with                                                                    
     the  Federal  Government.  However  these  efforts  are                                                                    
     almost unfortunately  too little too  late...our region                                                                    
     is  in   emergency  mode  now.  We   need  this  forest                                                                    
     designation  in order  to survive.  The existence  of a                                                                    
     timber   industry  in   Southeast  Alaska   depends  on                                                                    
     immediate action  to provide  a supply  of economically                                                                    
     viable sales. There has been  a concerted effort by the                                                                    
     State working  with the Forest  Service to  improve the                                                                    
     quantity  and  quality  of the  Forest  Service  timber                                                                    
     sales. This  effort continues but  has not  resulted in                                                                    
     the improvement  needed. There are 17  million acres in                                                                    
     the  Tongass  National  Forest…this  bill  will  secure                                                                    
     48,472  acres  for  timber harvest  management  by  the                                                                    
     Division of Forestry.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:25:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. Wright continued with her personal testimony:                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     It is  a very small amount  of land in the  big picture                                                                    
     but  it  could  go  a   long  way  in  maintaining  the                                                                    
     stability  of  our people  in  Southeast  Alaska. As  a                                                                    
     representative of the  logging communities in Southeast                                                                    
     Alaska  I urge  you  to support  the  expansion of  the                                                                    
     Alaska State Forest and support  the passage of HB 105.                                                                    
     This designation will enable  the Department of Natural                                                                    
     Resources  Division of  Forestry to  sustainably manage                                                                    
     the  timber, fisheries,  wildlife, waters,  recreation,                                                                    
     and other  multiple benefits  that will  strengthen the                                                                    
     local  economy, provide  jobs, and  improve quality  of                                                                    
     life of  all Southeast  Alaska communities. And  I also                                                                    
     encourage  you...as representatives  for  the State  of                                                                    
     Alaska and individually...to continue  to look for ways                                                                    
     to assist  the Federal  Government in  implementing the                                                                    
     Tongass  Land  Management  Plan and  open  the  Tongass                                                                    
     National Forest to responsible resource development.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
JOHN SANDOR, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in  favor of HB 105. He had                                                                    
been  a regional  forester for  the forest  service and  had                                                                    
served  as the  commissioner  of the  Department of  Natural                                                                    
Resources. The  bill would add  23,181 acres of  State lands                                                                    
to the  25,291 acre state  forest that had  been established                                                                    
the prior  year. He believed  that the state forest  was not                                                                    
large but would significantly  help the economy in Southeast                                                                    
Alaska's communities.  He recalled  that the  timber harvest                                                                    
level had been  420,000 million board feet in  1984 and that                                                                    
currently it  was less  than 50,000  million board  feet. He                                                                    
opined   that  the   reinstatement  of   the  2001   Clinton                                                                    
Administration's Roadless  Rule had  the potential  to limit                                                                    
resource  development  projects   on  all  Tongass  National                                                                    
Forest  areas.  He  expounded  that  two-thirds  of  the  27                                                                    
renewable   energy  projects   that  were   currently  being                                                                    
reviewed by  the forest service would  be adversely impacted                                                                    
by the  federal Roadless Rule. The  specific requirements of                                                                    
the  Roadless Rule  precluded the  extension of  power lines                                                                    
over roadless areas  and roads that led  to renewable energy                                                                    
projects.  He  emphasized that  the  adverse  impact on  the                                                                    
communities  of Southeast  Alaska would  be significant.  He                                                                    
relayed that  the Alaska-Canada  Energy Coalition  had asked                                                                    
the governor and the attorney  general to bring legal action                                                                    
against  the Roadless  Rule. He  discussed  that the  Alaska                                                                    
State  Forest  would   meaningfully  benefit  the  remaining                                                                    
sawmills in  Southeast Alaska and would  provide communities                                                                    
with new opportunities to improve  their economy and quality                                                                    
of life.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:30:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Thomas  thanked Mr. Sandor for  his contribution to                                                                    
the timber industry. He reflected  on how the loss of timber                                                                    
jobs  in  Southeast  Alaska had  resulted  in  a  population                                                                    
decline of 17,000  individuals in the past 10  years. He had                                                                    
seen  how  the  loss  of  industry  had  adversely  impacted                                                                    
population in villages.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Sandor  commented  that the  Department  of  Labor  and                                                                    
Workforce  Development  projected  that  the  population  in                                                                    
Southeast  Alaska  would  decline  14 percent  by  2034.  He                                                                    
believed that the bill would help to reduce the decline.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough  MOVED  to   report  HB  105  out  of                                                                    
committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal  note. There  being NO OBJECTION  it was                                                                    
so ordered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HB  105 was  REPORTED  out  of committee  with  a "do  pass"                                                                    
recommendation  and  with  one previously  published  fiscal                                                                    
note: FN1 (DNR).                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:32:49 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:43:20 PM                                                                                                                    
RECONVENED                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 150                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act  relating to  the  protection  of property  of                                                                    
     persons under  disability and  minors; relating  to the                                                                    
     crime  of  violating   a  protective  order  concerning                                                                    
     certain  vulnerable  persons; relating  to  aggravating                                                                    
     factors at sentencing for  offenses concerning a victim                                                                    
     65  years  or  older;  relating to  the  protection  of                                                                    
     vulnerable  adults; amending  Rule 12(h),  Alaska Rules                                                                    
     of  Criminal  Procedure;  amending Rule  45(a),  Alaska                                                                    
     Rules of  Criminal Procedure; amending Rule  65, Alaska                                                                    
     Rules  of Civil  Procedure;  amending  Rule 17,  Alaska                                                                    
     Rules  of Probate  Procedure; amending  Rule 9,  Alaska                                                                    
     Rules   of  Administration;   and   providing  for   an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:43:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DUANE  MAYES, DIRECTOR,  DIVISION OF  SENIOR AND  DISABILITY                                                                    
SERVICES,   DEPARTMENT  OF   HEALTH  AND   SOCIAL  SERVICES,                                                                    
explained  that   HB  150  related  to   the  protection  of                                                                    
"vulnerable adults,"  who were  identified as  Alaskans with                                                                    
disabilities  over  the age  of  65.  The bill  specifically                                                                    
related to the  protection of property and  the violation of                                                                    
a   protective  order.   He   communicated  that   financial                                                                    
exploitation of  elder and other vulnerable  populations was                                                                    
increasing  along  with  the   growth  in  Alaska's  elderly                                                                    
population.   The   Department   of  Labor   and   Workforce                                                                    
Development estimated  that there were  approximately 50,000                                                                    
or more adults  that were aged 60 and older;  the number was                                                                    
expected  to  change to  approximately  80,000  by 2017.  He                                                                    
delineated that the legislation  would strengthen Alaska law                                                                    
to increase  the protection of  elders and  other vulnerable                                                                    
adults   against  fraud   and  financial   exploitation.  He                                                                    
stressed that  vulnerable adults  needed assistance  to stop                                                                    
the theft of their money.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Mayes   detailed  that  the  bill   would  address  the                                                                    
difficulty that  victims had with  accessing the  courts and                                                                    
would  help them  to obtain  prompt and  inexpensive relief.                                                                    
Two frustrations that  victims had with the  courts would be                                                                    
solved   under  the   legislation:   First,  the   temporary                                                                    
conservatorship provisions  of HB 150 would  help victims of                                                                    
financial exploitation who may not  need a guardian, but who                                                                    
needed  assistance  to stop  the  immediate  theft of  their                                                                    
money.  The  temporary  conservatorship procedure  would  be                                                                    
similar to  the existing  temporary guardian  procedure; the                                                                    
victim  would retain  autonomy  while receiving  assistance,                                                                    
which would  enhance their ability  to stop  exploitation or                                                                    
loss before they suffered irreparable  harm. Second, the "ex                                                                    
parte" relief was similar to  the existing domestic violence                                                                    
protection  law   and  would  allow  vulnerable   adults  to                                                                    
independently   obtain  straightforward,   expedited  relief                                                                    
without   an  attorney,   from  any   magistrate  or   judge                                                                    
throughout Alaska.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Mayes  described that  HB  150  would amend  the  Adult                                                                    
Protective  Services statutes  to enhance  the investigative                                                                    
authority of vulnerable adults and  would expand the list of                                                                    
mandatory reporters  to include nursing home  employees. The                                                                    
bill  included "undue  influence"  language  related to  the                                                                    
mistreatment of a vulnerable adult by a person of trust.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair   Stoltze  asked   whether   the  undue   influence                                                                    
provision was similar to the  standard that had been applied                                                                    
in the Satch Carlson case,  which had focused on a teacher's                                                                    
sexual exploitation of a student in  his role as a person of                                                                    
trust. Mr. Mayes responded in the affirmative.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Mayes  summarized that the bill  would enhance penalties                                                                    
in criminal cases related to  the abuse of vulnerable adults                                                                    
and would  provide the  State of  Alaska with  the necessary                                                                    
tools  to  combat the  growing  problem  of financial  abuse                                                                    
against the elderly and disabled population.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:49:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PAT  LUBY,  ADVOCACY   DIRECTOR,  AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  FOR                                                                    
RETIRED PERSONS, vocalized the  organization's support of HB                                                                    
150.  He stated  that the  abuse and  exploitation of  older                                                                    
adults was  unfortunate and often  times the offender  was a                                                                    
family  member,  trusted  advisor, or  caregiver.  The  bill                                                                    
increased  mandated reporters,  including lower-level  staff                                                                    
in long-term  care facilities. The  use of  conservators was                                                                    
expanded  and  included  temporary  conservators  that  were                                                                    
available  on an  emergency basis.  The fastest  growing age                                                                    
group nationwide was  adults over the age of 85  and was the                                                                    
most likely group to be subjected  to some type of abuse. He                                                                    
voiced that HB 150 would not  solve all of the problems, but                                                                    
that it would  be helpful. He pointed out that  the title of                                                                    
the bill included the age of 65  and page 8, line 9 and page                                                                    
11,  lines  8  and  16  used the  age  60.  He  thought  the                                                                    
committee may  want to determine  whether the two  ages were                                                                    
necessary. He  reiterated the organization's support  of the                                                                    
bill  that  would  help  vulnerable  adults,  children,  and                                                                    
individuals with disabilities.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg asked  whether the  definition of                                                                    
"vulnerable  adult" was  broad enough  to cover  all of  the                                                                    
necessary   circumstances.  Mr.   Luby   replied  that   the                                                                    
organization relied on and  respected the attorney general's                                                                    
ability to provide the best definition.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SCOTT STERLING, SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY,  OFFICE OF ELDER FRAUD                                                                    
AND  ASSISTANCE, OFFICE  OF PUBLIC  ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
ADMINISTRATION    (via   teleconference),    supported   the                                                                    
legislation.  He   discussed  that  the  Office   of  Public                                                                    
Advocacy had  contributed to the  provisions related  to the                                                                    
temporary   conservatorship   and  protective   orders   for                                                                    
financial exploitation.  He noted that Kelly  Henriksen with                                                                    
DOL had  been involved in  the other provisions of  the bill                                                                    
related  to   adult  protective  services  and   other.  The                                                                    
temporary  conservatorship  program  was intended  to  be  a                                                                    
mirror of  the existing temporary guardianship  provision in                                                                    
AS  Title 13;  the  current provision  existed  in order  to                                                                    
provide courts  with express statutory authority  to appoint                                                                    
temporary  conservators  to  prevent immediate  or  imminent                                                                    
financial harm to  a vulnerable adult. The  court system had                                                                    
expressed   reservations  about   its  authority   to  issue                                                                    
temporary conservatorships  because they were  not currently                                                                    
allowed in  Alaska statute;  the proposed  legislation would                                                                    
eliminate the problem.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Sterling  communicated  that the  financial  protection                                                                    
orders  were intended  to permit  inexpensive and  expedited                                                                    
relief  without  the  need  to hire  an  attorney  and  were                                                                    
similar to  existing orders that were  available to domestic                                                                    
violence  victims. He  explained that  in his  profession it                                                                    
was   generally   accepted    that   fraud   and   financial                                                                    
exploitation  were a  form of  domestic  violence. The  bill                                                                    
would   permit   any    citizen   aggrieved   by   financial                                                                    
mistreatment  to  apply  for relief  from  the  exploitation                                                                    
before a judge  or magistrate without the  involvement of an                                                                    
attorney; however,  the bill did  not prevent  citizens from                                                                    
using an attorney.  The goal was to provide  people with the                                                                    
ability to put  a stop to exploitation that  had become more                                                                    
prevalent  due  to the  ease  in  which technology  overcame                                                                    
barriers privacy  rights. The purpose  of the  provision was                                                                    
to  offer  statutory  remedies   and  procedures  that  were                                                                    
accessible  and allowed  individuals  to protect  themselves                                                                    
from financial abuse.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:57:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Costello wondered  whether identity theft was                                                                    
considered  under   the  definition  of   exploitation.  Mr.                                                                    
Sterling responded  in the affirmative.  He added  that many                                                                    
of the fraud and financial  exploitation cases in the Office                                                                    
of Elder Fraud Assistance had involved identity theft.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
BETH RUSSO,  SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY, PUBLIC  GUARDIAN SECTION,                                                                    
OFFICE  OF  PUBLIC  ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT  OF  ADMINISTRATION                                                                    
(via  teleconference), voiced  the agency's  support of  the                                                                    
bill. The  agency believed the  bill would be  a significant                                                                    
aid to  its clients and  any person subject to  a protective                                                                    
proceeding,   and  would   eliminate   the   need  for   the                                                                    
appointment of a public guardian or conservator.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
BRENDA   MAHLATINI,  PROGRAM   MANAGER,   OFFICE  OF   ADULT                                                                    
PROTECTIVE  SERVICES, DIVISION  OF  SENIOR AND  DISABILITIES                                                                    
SERVICES,  DEPARTMENT OF  HEALTH  AND  SOCIAL SERVICES  (via                                                                    
teleconference),  introduced herself  and was  available for                                                                    
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
KATHY  MONFREDA,  CHIEF  AND  CRIMINAL  JUSTICE  INFORMATION                                                                    
SYSTEM OFFICER  (CJIS), CRIMINAL RECORDS  AND IDENTIFICATION                                                                    
BUREAU,  DEPARTMENT OF  PUBLIC SAFETY  (via teleconference),                                                                    
explained   that   CJIS   was   responsible   for   database                                                                    
maintenance  for files  such as  protective orders.  She was                                                                    
available to answer questions.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public  testimony, but noted that he                                                                    
would reopen it in a future meeting if necessary.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
HB  150  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
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."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:01:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ALAN  AUSTERMAN,   SPONSOR,  introduced  his                                                                    
staff that would discuss the bill.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
STEVE   RICCI,   STAFF,   REPRESENTATIVE   ALAN   AUSTERMAN,                                                                    
discussed that HB 141 established  a revolving loan fund for                                                                    
the Community  Quota Entity (CQE)  Program. The  program was                                                                    
created in 2004  by the North Pacific  Management Council in                                                                    
response  to  the  significant  outmigration  of  commercial                                                                    
longline quota  from rural villages  in the Gulf  of Alaska.                                                                    
The  program  allowed 21  communities  in  Southeast and  21                                                                    
communities in  Southcentral to purchase and  lease quota to                                                                    
residents, which  would enable communities and  fishermen to                                                                    
be active  participants in the  fisheries that  occurred off                                                                    
of their shores. Since the  inception of the CQE program and                                                                    
purchase  quota, only  one of  the eligible  communities had                                                                    
been able  to utilize the  legal authority that  the program                                                                    
provided. The most significant  barrier to participation was                                                                    
the  ability to  access financing.  The bill  established an                                                                    
independent revolving  loan fund  to assist  the communities                                                                    
in the  procurement of  quota, which  would help  to support                                                                    
the  economy  of  rural,   coastal  communities;  an  active                                                                    
fishing fleet would employ  residents, provide tax revenues,                                                                    
spend  income  locally,  and allow  the  communities  to  be                                                                    
sustainable and  self-reliant. He pointed to  the success of                                                                    
a  similar   program  (Community  Development   Quota  (CDQ)                                                                    
Program) that  had been implemented  to aid  local residents                                                                    
that did not have  significant access to fisheries occurring                                                                    
off  their shores  in  the Bering  Sea as  a  result of  the                                                                    
Individual Fishing  Quota (IFQ)  system; residents  had been                                                                    
provided 10 percent of the pollock quota.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:05:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Edgmon  supported  the legislation.  He  had                                                                    
worked as the  CDQ program manager when the  CQE program was                                                                    
in  development.  He  highlighted the  significance  of  the                                                                    
economic development  and number  of jobs that  could result                                                                    
from the program.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Thomas   wondered  what  the  loan   cap  was  per                                                                    
community.  He thought  that poorer  communities may  not be                                                                    
able to leverage as much as others such as Kodiak.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Ricci  responded in two  parts: First, Kodiak  would not                                                                    
be an  eligible community  under the program.  Second, there                                                                    
was a $1 million cap  per community, which was approximately                                                                    
33,000 pounds at current day prices.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Thomas  wondered  whether similar  to  the  harbor                                                                    
grant  program,  the  loan  fund  would  not  allow  revenue                                                                    
sharing or direct capital grants  from the legislature to be                                                                    
used as matching grants. Mr. Ricci did not know.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Thomas  remarked that  he had  helped to  write the                                                                    
program.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:08:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Costello  requested that Mr.  Ricci's written                                                                    
comments be  provided to the committee.  Mr. Ricci responded                                                                    
that he would provide them.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Doogan asked  whether the  problem was  that                                                                    
people  did not  have the  money  to fish  their quota.  Mr.                                                                    
Ricci  replied that  residents of  the communities  had seen                                                                    
quota migrate from their  communities to larger communities.                                                                    
Individuals that had participated  in the fishery had either                                                                    
left or sold  the quota and residents had been  left with no                                                                    
access  to the  fishery.  The loan  program  would help  the                                                                    
communities to  purchase quota  and would  allow individuals                                                                    
to lease  it from  the community.  The program  required the                                                                    
lessee  to be  a resident  of  the community  that held  the                                                                    
quota.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Hawker understood  that the  bill created  a                                                                    
revolving loan  fund for the  purpose of making  loans under                                                                    
the existing CQE program. He  asked the sponsor to determine                                                                    
whether there  were underutilized  funds in  other revolving                                                                    
loan  programs  that  could  be  accessed  to  pay  for  the                                                                    
program,  which would  eliminate  the need  for the  general                                                                    
fund appropriation request included in HB 140.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Ricci responded  that he would work  with the department                                                                    
on the request.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson wondered  why  the  state would  hire                                                                    
more  employees   to  administer  the  program   instead  of                                                                    
offering the loan through a financial institution.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Mr.  Ricci  responded that  there  would  be one  additional                                                                    
person hired  in the Division  of Investments.  He explained                                                                    
that  private  banking institutions  would  not  be able  to                                                                    
provide the necessary  loan program terms to  meet the needs                                                                    
of  the CQE  communities.  Since the  inception  of the  CQE                                                                    
program in 2004, private financial  institutions had been in                                                                    
place;  however,  they had  not  been  able to  provide  the                                                                    
financing  that  was  necessary to  make  the  program  work                                                                    
properly.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Edgmon added  that  recipients  could get  a                                                                    
much better interest rate through  the loan program that had                                                                    
been constructed much like  the commercial fishing revolving                                                                    
loan program  that had been  established in the  early 1980s                                                                    
to help  fishermen access lower  capital. He noted  that the                                                                    
commercial fishing loan program  had been successful and had                                                                    
contributed money back to the general fund.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Hawker  asked  the  sponsor  to  contemplate                                                                    
whether  it  was possible  to  achieve  the desired  outcome                                                                    
without  creating a  new revolving  loan  fund. He  wondered                                                                    
whether it could  be structured as a  loan guarantee program                                                                    
or an  interest subsidy  to facilitate participation  in the                                                                    
commercial fisheries  revolving loan funds. He  did not want                                                                    
to grow government  or to create new  agencies and programs.                                                                    
He thought  it would  be more  beneficial to  capitalize and                                                                    
take advantage of programs that already existed.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Doogan wondered where  the $45 million figure                                                                    
in the bill came from. Mr.  Ricci responded that each of the                                                                    
42 communities  would be eligible  for $1 million  under the                                                                    
loan fund.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:14:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Thomas noted that only  a few entities were able to                                                                    
use permits  and IFQs  as collateral  for a  loan, including                                                                    
the State of Alaska and a halibut commission.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
WANETTA AYERS,  DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,                                                                    
DEPARTMENT    OF   COMMERCE,    COMMUNITY,   AND    ECONOMIC                                                                    
DEVELOPMENT, agreed  that it  was problematic  for financial                                                                    
institutions to  put a  lien against a  quota share  and was                                                                    
the  reason   the  division  had  historically   served  the                                                                    
purpose.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Thomas  discussed that  he  had  been involved  in                                                                    
fisheries  for  35  years.  He had  watched  the  number  of                                                                    
employees on larger  boats decrease from up  to eight people                                                                    
down to  four. Individuals who  had fished in the  past were                                                                    
left  out  of  the  fishery and  were  struggling  in  their                                                                    
communities.  He  stressed  that   permits  and  IFQ's  were                                                                    
leaving Alaska; the loan program  provided a key solution to                                                                    
problem, given that it required  the fishermen and employees                                                                    
to  be  residents  of  the community  that  owned  the  CQE.                                                                    
Communities would rotate  who they leased the  CQE to, which                                                                    
provided  an   opportunity  to   spread  jobs   to  multiple                                                                    
residents.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:18:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Costello  asked whether the  program competed                                                                    
with  the Alaska  Commercial  Fishing  and Agriculture  Bank                                                                    
(CFAB). Ms. Ayers responded that  the question would be best                                                                    
addressed by CFAB, but she did  not believe that a CQE would                                                                    
meet the CFAB lending standards.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Hawker  clarified that  the intent of  a loan                                                                    
guarantee program that would  access existing programs would                                                                    
be to make borrowers credit worthy.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public  testimony, but noted that he                                                                    
would reopen it in a future meeting if necessary.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
HB  141  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 140                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act making a special appropriation to the                                                                              
     community quota entity revolving loan fund; and                                                                            
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:20:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze  discussed  that  HB 140  included  a  $45                                                                    
million appropriation. He added  that the funding would most                                                                    
likely  be included  in another  appropriation  bill if  the                                                                    
committee decided to provide it.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB  140  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
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. 103                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act  relating  to  the  procurement  of  supplies,                                                                    
     services, professional  services, and  construction for                                                                    
     the  Alaska Energy  Authority; establishing  the Alaska                                                                    
     Railbelt  energy   fund  and  relating  to   the  fund;                                                                    
     relating  to and  repealing the  Railbelt energy  fund;                                                                    
     relating  to the  quorum  of the  board  of the  Alaska                                                                    
     Energy Authority; relating to  the powers of the Alaska                                                                    
     Energy Authority  regarding employees and  the transfer                                                                    
     of   certain  employees   of   the  Alaska   Industrial                                                                    
     Development  Export  Authority  to  the  Alaska  Energy                                                                    
     Authority;  relating   to  acquiring   or  constructing                                                                    
     certain  projects  by   the  Alaska  Energy  Authority;                                                                    
     relating to  the definition  of 'feasibility  study' in                                                                    
     the Alaska  Energy Authority Act; and  providing for an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB 103 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 104                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An  Act renaming  the  Alaska performance  scholarship                                                                    
     and  relating  to  the   scholarship  and  tax  credits                                                                    
     applicable   to  contributions   to  the   scholarship;                                                                    
     establishing   the   Alaska   performance   scholarship                                                                    
     investment fund and  the Alaska performance scholarship                                                                    
     award   fund  and   relating  to   the  funds;   making                                                                    
     conforming amendments;  and providing for  an effective                                                                    
     date."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HB 104 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 120                                                                                                            
     "An Act  creating a new  markets tax  credit assistance                                                                    
     guarantee   and   loan   program  within   the   Alaska                                                                    
     Industrial  Development   and  Export   Authority;  and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
HB 120 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 121                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act  establishing the commercial  charter fisheries                                                                    
     revolving  loan fund,  the  mariculture revolving  loan                                                                    
     fund, and the Alaska  microloan revolving loan fund and                                                                    
     relating  to those  funds and  loans from  those funds;                                                                    
     and providing for an effective date."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HB 121 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 125                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act moving the  Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to                                                                    
     the  Department of  Commerce,  Community, and  Economic                                                                    
     Development and relating to  duties of that department;                                                                    
     and providing for an effective date."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HB 125 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
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."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 164 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:21:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The meeting was adjourned at 4:21 PM.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 103 - 15 Department of Law Outline of FERC and RCA Oversight.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 103
HB 103 - 14 Department of Law Outline of RCA Regulation.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 103
HB 103(ENE) Sectional Analysis - sequential.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 103
HB 103(ENE) Sectional Analysis - by subject.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 103
HB 103 - 06 Summary of Fiscal Notes.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 103
HB 103 - 03 Governor's Transmittal Letter.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 103
CSHB104(EDC)Sectional ACPE 3 21 11.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 104
HB104 Sectional SB43EDC012811 ACPE(2).pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 104
SB 43
SB43 HB104 one pagerFIN2.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 104
SB 43
HB104 AWIBAPSResolution.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 104
HB104 APS Chenault Transmittal.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 104
2-24_HB120_Bill-NMTC.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 120
2-24_HB120_HearingInformationSheet.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 120
2-24_HB120_SectionalAnalysis.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 120
2-24_HB120_WhitePaper.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 120
CSHB 121 Sectional Analysis.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 121
HB 121 - Alaskan Shellfish Grower's Association - Support.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 121
HB 121 - CCED - Letter of support - SWAMC.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 121
HB 121 - Shellfish Production Stats - West Coast.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 121
HB 121 - Treasures of the Tidelands - WA.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 121
HB 121-CCED-Letter of Support-Taco Loco.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 121
NCSL Revolving Loan briefing paper.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 125 Supporting Documents-Related Statutes.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 125
HB125 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 125
HB125 Supporting Documents-ABC Sunset Review.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 125
HB125 Supporting Documents-LB&A Subcom Rcmndtn ABC Board.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 125
HB 150 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 150
HB 150 Summary of changes.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 150
HB125-Summary of Changes.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 125
03-14-11 CTS 15051 John Lucking.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 150 AARP letter of support.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 150
HB 150 Proposed amendment.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 150
HB 150 Sectional Analysis 3-25-11.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 150
HB104 Sectional EDC012811 ACPE(2) HB 104.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 104
CSHB 8 Utah Em. Dom. Article.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB8-NEWFNLAW-CIV-03-18-11.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB 8 Supremacy-10th Amend.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB 8 stroke of pen.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB 8 sponsor.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB 8 Sectional.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB 8 Null & Void article.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB 8 NYC v FCC Syllabus.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB 8 -HR0009A.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB 8 Executive Orders Info.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB 8 CFR Costs.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB10-NEWFNDOA-DMV-03-18-11.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 10 AML Letter.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 10 Explanation of Changes.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 10 Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105 Value Added 3.8.2011.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105 Vicinity Map 12-20-2010.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
CSHB164(L&C) Sponsor Statement.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 164
CSHB164(L&C) Sectional Analysis.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 164
HB 105 Trends Populations Projections 2010-2034.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105 Transmittal.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105 SE Land Summary 2.22.2011.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105 Public Briefing 1.24.2011.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105 Parcel Maps 12.20.2010.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105 Land Ownership and Mill Status.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB141_Sectional_Analysis.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB_141_Sponsor_Statement.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 141 NOAA Alaska Fisheries report 4pgs..pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 127 West Law AK Statutes LAW part 1.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 127
HB 127 West Law AK Statutes LAW part 2.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 127
HB104 NEW FN CS(EDC)-EED-ACPE-03-23-11.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 104
HB 78 CS sponsor statement 27-LS0147.T.doc HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 78
HB 078 27-LS0147 changes .T to .R.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 78
CS WORK DRAFT HB 78 27-LS0147.R.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 78
03r - HB 078 CS sectional summary 27-LS0147.R.doc HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 78
HB104 NEW FN(EDC)-DOR-TAX-03-29-11.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 104
HB104 NEW FN-DOR-TRS-03-21-11.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 104
HB 164 Support.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 164
HB 105 Sandor Wright Rogers Testimony.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105
HB 105 Wolfe Testimony.pdf HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM
HB 105