Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/31/1999 02:05 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 31, 1999
2:05 P.M.
TAPE HFC 99 - 57, Side 1
TAPE HFC 99 - 57, Side 2
TAPE HFC 99 - 58, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative G. Davis
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Foster
Vice-Chair Bunde Representative Grussendorf
Representative Austerman Representative Kohring
Representative J. Davies
Representative Moses and Williams were absent from the
meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Don Dapcevich, Advisory Board on Alcohol and Drug Abuse;
Margie Vandor, Department of Law; Karen Perdue,
Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services;
Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration; Margo Waring, Alaska Mental Health Board;
Jerry Luckhaupt, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Affairs
Agency; Richard Wallis Craighton, Juneau; Al Aaron, National
Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Fairbanks; Jeannette Grasto,
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Fairbanks; Gene
Grasto, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Fairbanks;
Jean Steele, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Homer;
Joanna Tornes, Homer; Hazel Bentley, Homer.
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
First Sgt. David Hudson, Anchorage Police; Ernie Dummann,
Member, Council of Disabilities and Special Education,
Anchorage; Scot Wheat, National Alliance for the Mentally
Ill, Homer; Blair McCune, Alaska Public Defenders Agency;
John Woodward, Anchorage; Robyn Henry, Anchorage; Karleen
Jackson, Anchorage; Al Aaron, National Alliance for the
Mentally Ill, Fairbanks; Jeannette Grasto, National Alliance
for the Mentally Ill, Fairbanks; Gene Grasto, National
Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Fairbanks; Kelly Behen,
Mental Health Board, Homer; Jean Steele, National Alliance
for the Mentally Ill, Homer; Joanna Tornes, Homer; Hazel
Bentley, Homer.
SUMMARY
HB 3 "An Act relating to controlled substances and to
the possession and distribution of certain
chemicals."
CSHB 3 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and an indeterminate
fiscal impact note by the Alaska Public Defenders
Agency and two zero fiscal notes one by the
Department of Law and one by the Department of
Public Safety.
HB 161 "An Act relating to reduction in payments to
individuals under certain benefit programs; and
providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to controlled substances and to the
possession and distribution of certain chemicals."
Co-Chair Therriault observed that he introduced similar
legislation and that his office has worked with
Representative Brice on HB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, SPONSOR testified in support of HB
3. He reviewed his sponsor statement. Methamphetamine is an
addictive stimulant that dramatically affects the central
nervous system. Methamphetamine is commonly known as
"crank," "speed," and "ice." The drug is easily made in
laboratories with relatively inexpensive, over-the-counter
ingredients. Methamphetamine laboratories are extremely
dangerous, even if they are not producing as the
combinations of the chemicals that are used in the
production process are highly explosive. These factors make
methamphetamine a dangerous drug with great potential for
widespread abuse. House Bill 3 raises the penalties for the
manufacture of methamphetamines and their immediate
precursors, and the possession of listed chemicals with the
intent to manufacture these drugs. Under the CSHB 3, the
manufacture of methamphetamines and their immediate
precursors will be a class A felony, punishable as provided
in AS 12.55.125. It also identifies chemicals that are legal
to posses but are used for the manufacture of controlled
substances. Possession of these chemicals with the intent
to manufacture methamphetamines or their immediate
precursors is made a class A felony.
Representative Brice noted that section 1 establishes that
the manufacture of methamphetamine or an immediate precursor
of methamphetamine with the intent to manufacture is a class
A felony. Section 3 clarifies that the provision only
applies to conduct that is not proscribed under section 1.
He explained that there are new processes with new chemicals
being developed in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
Therefore, it was decided that a list should be maintained
to place the elements of the crime specifically in statute.
He noted that the Internet contains information regarding
the manufacturing of methamphetamine.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that some of the elements are
relatively common. He questioned how many of the components
a person would need to have in their position for
prosecution. Representative Brice replied that it would be
at the discretion of the law enforcement officers. He
clarified that intent to manufacture methamphetamine must be
demonstrated.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
AGENCY explained that possession of the chemicals is not
made illegal. Possession must be accompanied by the intent
to manufacture methamphetamine. He discussed circumstances
that could lead to intent such as statements by the
defendant or recipes and equipment used in the manufacture
of methamphetamine.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the legislation was
amended to clarify that there must be intent to manufacture.
Representative J. Davies expressed concern with section 3,
page 2. He questioned if there are other substances that
could be manufactured with the same precursors.
Mr. Luckhaupt explained that immediate precursors have been
identified as separate controlled substances. He observed
that the chemicals listed in section 3 are precursors.
Immediate precursors are defined in A.S. 11.71.900. He noted
that the legislation recognizes that the manufacture of
methamphetamine is dangerous in itself. The intent to
manufacture was upgraded from a class B to a class A felony.
Manufacturing an immediate precursor carries the same
penalty as manufacturing methamphetamine. Section 3 follows
other controlled substance laws. Subsection 4 is an addition
to existing law. It codifies a specific form of intent to
manufacture methamphetamine or an immediate precursor to
methamphetamine.
In response to a question by Representative G. Davis,
Representative Brice clarified that all of the chemicals in
section 5 are can be used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine.
Mr. Luckhaupt noted that the list follows federal law as
essential in the illegal manufacture of a controlled
substance. There are some chemicals used in the manufacture
of methamphetamine, which are not on the federal list. These
were added.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if there is a market for the
immediate precursor. Representative Brice explained that the
legislation responds to frustrations by enforcement officers
in their inability to close methamphetamine laboratories
before the controlled substance has been produced.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that 5 gallons of smoking
chemicals were found in one operation. He emphasized the
danger of immediate precursors.
Representative Austerman expressed surprise that there is no
fiscal cost to the legislation. Representative Brice
explained that the manufacture of methamphetamine is only
beginning in the state of Alaska.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there were two prosecutions
in the last year, and one of these was a federal case. He
observed that the department felt that they could absorb the
additional cost.
In response to a question by Representative J. Davies, Mr.
Luckhaupt explained that federal law identifies the
chemicals that are important to the manufacture of
methamphetamine. The state and federal schedules do not
match identically. He gave examples of differences between
state and federal listings. He concluded that the state is
making a finding that these substances are used in the
manufacture of controlled substances so that possession of
the chemicals with the addition of intent would be illegal.
He noted that other chemicals could be added for
prosecution. In addition, the general attempt statute
mandates that whenever a person intends to violate any other
state law that a crime is committed. The crime would be
punishable one level below the crime that they intended to
violate. He concluded that even if a person intended to
manufacture methamphetamine and they possessed other
chemicals, even if they were not a listed chemical, they
would be prosecuted.
FIRST SGT. DAVID HUDSON, ANCHORAGE POLICE testified via
teleconference in support of HB 3.
BLAIR MCCUNE, ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDERS AGENCY stated that
they are concern with the use of methamphetamine. He
questioned if sentencing would be tied to quantities. He
stated that it is important to distinguish between a
misguided youth and someone who is setting up a large
laboratory. He discussed federal sentencing guidelines. He
expressed concern with the inclusion of immediate precursors
as a class A felony. He pointed out that a class A felony is
serious. He noted that the Alaska Public Defenders Agency's
fiscal note is indeterminate. The fiscal note was based on
the Department of Law's estimations of additional cases. The
Department of Law does not anticipate many additional cases
initially.
DON DAPCEVICH, ADIVSORY BOARD ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
testified in support of HB 3. He stressed that the drug goes
hand and hand with crime. He maintained that the legislation
would act as a deterrent.
In response to a question by Representative J. Davies, Mr.
Dapcevich stated that the Board supports the change to a 1A
substance.
RICHARD WALLIS CRAIGHTON, JUNEAU recounted personal
experiences with the police.
(Tape Change, HFC 99 - 57, Side 2)
Sergeant Hudson stated that the number of cases that would
occur in the near future would not require a fiscal note.
Representative J. Davies asked if the possession of each
chemical substance on the list would lead to a separate
charge. Mr. Luchhaupt stated that it is possible that there
would be multiple charges. He emphasized that he is not
aware of cases involving multiple charges under the federal
system, which contains similar language. He noted that one
form of attempt to manufacture has been codified. He
stressed that he would need to research the wording of
language to clarify a single charge. The possession of the
chemicals together is used to make the case of intent to
manufacture.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 3 (JUD) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes.
CSHB 3 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and an indeterminate fiscal impact note by
the Alaska Public Defenders Agency and two zero fiscal notes
one by the Department of Law and one by the Department of
Public Safety.
HOUSE BILL NO. 161
"An Act relating to reduction in payments to
individuals under certain benefit programs; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Mulder observed that Tamara Cook, Legal Counsel,
Legislative Affairs Agency, indicated that the legislation
would not affect Medicaid because that is a payment to a
provider, not an individual. He noted that it was not his
intent that the legislation affect Medicaid.
MARGIE VANDOR, DEPARTMENT OF LAW noted concerns by the
Department of Law. She pointed out that the legislation
raises the question of unconstitutional delegation of
legislative authority. She observed that the legislation is
broad and pointed out that similar broad legislation was
struck down by the court. The legislation does not identify
benefit programs. She stated that the legislation provides
that "not withstanding other provisions of law" insufficient
funding would be handled on a pro rata basis. This conflicts
with existing programs that provide that insufficient
funding be handled through a reduction in service. She
stated that programs need to be identified and guidelines
provided regarding the determination of when a pro rata
basis should be done. She asserted that there is too much
left up to the agencies. She noted that it is a legislative
function to set the guidelines of appropriations.
In response to a question by Vice-Chair Bunde, Ms. Vandor
stated that each benefit program would have to be addressed
separately.
ALISON ELGEE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION provided information on the legislation in
regards to the longevity bonus program. She spoke against an
across the board pro rata reduction to the program. She
pointed out that the Administration has introduced HB 55 to
allow an income cap on the program as a fair way to address
a reduction. She added that it is difficult to determine the
actual amount of need in order to estimate when pro ration
should occur. She observed that the program might have been
unnecessarily reduced in the current year had they responded
to earlier estimates.
KAREN PERDUE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES testified in opposition to HB 161. She stated that
the legislation conflicts with longstanding statutes.
Recipients will not be able to anticipate the amount of
their payments. She noted that most programs have
accompanying statutes that describe the program's criteria.
There are federal protections that would prevent the
legislation from applying to some programs. She acknowledged
that the legislature does have the ability to pro rate
programs. She observed that there are a number of cash
payment programs that would be affected. The Alaska
Temporary Assistance Program (ATAP), payments to foster
parents, subsidized adoption and guardianship, and Adult
Public Assistance (APA) would be affected. She maintained
that changes should be made to programs through legislation.
Co-Chair Mulder referred to Commissioner Perdue's letter
dated March 31, 1999 (copy on file). He read from the
letter: "Our TANF Block Grant requires that we maintain
state expenditures at 80 percent of our 1994 level (MOE).
The Governor's FY2000 budget for ATAP includes only the
amount of General Funds necessary to meet the MOE." He asked
if the MOE (maintenance of effort) level is stationary.
Commissioner Perdue clarified that the amount does not
change. It is 80 percent of the amount paid by the state in
1994. Co-Chair Mulder observed that this assumes that the
amount spent in 1994 was the right amount at that point in
time. Commissioner Perdue noted that this amount was agreed
on in Congress. Co-Chair Mulder noted that Commissioner
Perdue stated that: "Any reduction to the General Fund
amount in this program would result in significant
penalties." He asked what the penalties would be.
Commissioner Perdue did not know the exact amount but
observed that the state would have to make a cash payment to
the federal government.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if it would be more disturbing for
payments to end prematurely or to be pro rated. Commissioner
Perdue stressed that individuals are dependent on their
payments and that either scenario would be difficult.
Commissioner Perdue pointed out that community programs that
help persons with mental illness or developmental disability
are dependent on the payments. She added that the state pays
the Medicaid premiums for 8,000 elderly Alaskans.
JEANNETTE GRASTO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR THE
MENTALLY ILL, FAIRBANKS spoke against HB 161. She maintained
that the programs are essential.
GENE GRASTO, NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR THE MENTALLY ILL,
FAIRBANKS testified against HB 161. He maintained that the
legislation is "disability cleansing." He asserted that the
state has sufficient funding to take care of the needs of
the mentally ill.
MARGO WARING, STAFF, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH BOARD reviewed the
Board's concerns with HB 161. She emphasized that reduction
in funding levels for persons with mental illness would
jeopardize their wellbeing by threatening already low-income
levels. She observed that Alaska has been reducing the
capacity of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute for several
years, in favor of community based care. Community care
requires that persons have basic income support to live in
communities rather than in institutions. Of the 8,000 low
income, disabled Alaskans on APA, many are chronically
mentally ill. She maintained that formula programs assure
that increases and decreases do not jeopardize those already
enrolled. The Alaska Mental Health Board supports the
continuation of benefit programs that are predictable,
consistent, and provide sufficient support for individuals
with disabilities.
ERNIE DUMMANN, MEMBER, COUNCIL OF DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL
EDUCATION, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 161. He noted that he is the father of a
severely disabled child. He expressed concern that support
for his son would be reduced by the legislation. He stressed
that community based programs are extremely stretched.
JOHN WOODWARD, CHAIR, STATE INDEPENDENT LIVING COUNCIL,
ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to HB
161. He recommended that the legislation be held until
questions regarding the affect of the legislation are
answered.
SCOT WHEAT, NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR THE MENTALLY ILL, HOMER
testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 161. He
maintained that reductions to benefits would cause
disruptions and increase the number of persons in
institutions. He stressed that people need support in
transportation, childcare and housing in order to move from
welfare to work.
KELLY BEHEN, CONSUMER MEMBER, MENTAL HEALTH BOARD, HOMER
testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 161. She
expressed concern that the legislation could shift costs to
overburdened communities without resources.
ROBYN HENRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR THE
MENTALLY ILL, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 161. She stressed that the legislation
would have grave effects upon those with mental health
problems. She stressed that the legislation could jeopardize
the ability of people to live independently and make it
necessary for people to return to institutions. She noted
that citizens receive over $1 thousand dollars in permanent
fund dividend checks.
(Tape Change 99- 58, Side 1).
KARLEEN JACKSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ANCHORAGE testified via
teleconference against the proposed legislation. She urged
Committee members to reconsider. She stated that the
legislation undermines the work that has occurred over the
last two years, to get people to work. She stressed that it
would be extremely hard for homeless shelters and other
support groups to provide for individuals if their benefits
were reduced to 8 months. She maintained that there would be
an increased cost to the state if individuals were taken out
of the work place and made homeless.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that the 8 or 12 month scenario
was a hypothetical condition. He had asked which would be
the least damaging to those receiving payments. Ms. Jackson
replied that if it causes them to become homeless, a one-
year time limit would be short sighted. She asserted that if
benefits are cut, the benefit will be lost.
JEAN STEELE, HOMER testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 161. She noted that she is disabled. She
stated that she was grateful for the services that she
currently receives. She stated that the proposed bill is
disturbing in its generalities. She maintained that without
specific language, it leaves people floating in the air.
Those who are disabled and cannot work depend on these
services and cannot afford to have the state budget balanced
on their backs. She asserted that funds are being spent on
travel and highways and other things that cannot be
rationalized by those that are disabled. She stated that
further cuts could exacerbate a spiraling.
JOHANNA TORNES, HOMER testified via teleconference in
opposition to HB 161. She echoed the previous comments. She
observed that bill is vague.
JEFF JESSE, E.D., ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY
testified in opposition to HB 161. He emphasized that many
beneficiaries are close to the edge. He noted that
recipients have built their independence around these funds.
He stressed that individuals on the margin would not be able
to maintain their independence with reductions. He asserted
that the reduction of any programs would push individuals to
the edge. He stressed that the mental health population is
trying to put together the benefits that they receive. He
pointed out that if projections were significantly off or a
recession was to hit the state, there could be a dramatic
impact to beneficiaries. He maintained that the legislature
has to take the risk and shoulder the responsibility for
making hard choices. He stressed that the way to make the
choice is not through short funding programs in the budget
process.
HB 161 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
House Finance Committee 10 3/31/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|