Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/26/2001 01:53 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
April 26, 2001
1:53 P.M.
TAPE HFC 01 - 97, Side A
TAPE HFC 01 - 97, Side B
TAPE HFC 01 - 98, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:53 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative John Davies
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Richard Foster
Representative John Harris
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Ken Lancaster
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Eddy Jeans, Manger, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development; Pam LaBolle,
President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Juneau; Bill
Cramer, Acting Director, Unemployment Insurance Division,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development; Denise
Henderson, Staff, Representative Pete Kott; Jerry Luckhaupt,
Legislative Legal, Legislative Affairs Agency; Nancy Weller,
State, Federal & Tribal Relations, Division of Medical
Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services; Karen
Perdue, Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services; Rebecca Nance-Gamez, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development; Don
Etheridge, Alaska State AFL-CIO, Juneau; Kim Garnero,
Director, Division of Finance, Department of Administration.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Katelyn Markley, Development Specialist, Alaska Industrial
Development & Export Authority (AIDEA), Department of
Commerce & Economic Development, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 58 An Act relating to the calculation and payment of
unemployment compensation benefits; and providing
for an effective date.
CS HB 58 (L&C) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
#1 by the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, #2 by the Department of
Administration and #4 by the University of Alaska.
HB 65 An Act relating to a new optional group of persons
eligible for medical assistance who require
treatment for breast or cervical cancer; and
providing for an effective date.
CS HB 65 (HES) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
#1 by the Department of Health & Social Services
dated 1/16/01.
HB 125 An Act relating to unlawful and indecent viewing
and photography and to civil damages and penalties
for that viewing and photography.
CS HB 125 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual" recommendations and with a zero
fiscal note by #1 Department of Law dated 4/20/01,
zero #2 by the Alaska Court System dated 4/20/01,
and fiscal impact note #3 by the Department of
Administration dated 4/20/01.
HB 175 An Act making an appropriation to the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority for
power projects; and providing for an effective
date.
HB 175 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 191 An Act authorizing financing for certain public
transportation projects; giving notice of and
approving the entry into, and the issuance of
revenue obligations that provide participation in,
lease-financing agreements for those
transportation projects; and providing for an
effective date.
HB 191 was RESCHEDULED for a hearing at a later
date.
HB 234 An Act relating to the financing of construction
and renovation of certain public facilities; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 234 was RESCHEDULED for a hearing at a later
date.
HB 238 An Act relating to the power transmission intertie
fund of the Alaska Energy Authority.
HB 238 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 260 An Act requiring the owners or operators of
certain passenger vessels operating in the marine
waters of the state to register the vessels;
establishing information-gathering, record
keeping, and reporting requirements relating to
the vessels' gray water and sewage; prohibiting
the discharge of untreated sewage from the vessels
unless exempted; placing limits on discharges of
treated sewage and gray water from the vessels
unless exempted; establishing a commercial
passenger vessel coastal protection fund;
establishing a fee on commercial passenger
vessels, that are not exempt from the fee, for
each voyage during which the vessels operate in
the marine waters of the state based on the
overnight accommodation capacity of the vessels
determined with reference to the number of lower
berths; establishing penalties for failure to
comply with certain laws relating to the vessels;
authorizing the Department of Environmental
Conservation to encourage and recognize superior
environmental protection efforts related to
commercial passenger vessels; authorizing
exemptions from some laws relating to discharges
from the vessels and from the fee requirements
related to the vessels; requiring a report from
the Department of Environmental Conservation
concerning matters relating to the vessels; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 260 was RESCHEDULED for a hearing at a later
date.
HOUSE BILL NO. 125
An Act relating to unlawful and indecent viewing and
photography and to civil damages and penalties for that
viewing and photography.
providing for an effective date.
DENISE HENDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, stated
that HB 125 would amend Alaska Statute 09.68 by adding a
section that creates protection for victims of improper
viewing and/or photography. The bill establishes the
parameters for what is considered to be improper viewing or
photography.
Ms. Henderson added that the bill would prohibit the
transmission of pictures or video images over the Internet
without the consent of the subject or the parents, if the
subject was a minor. The bill would also prohibit any
monetary gain to be had by the perpetrators of crimes as
well as imposing stiff monetary fines.
Ms. Henderson summarized that HB 125 would ban a practice
known simply as "up-skirting or down-blousing". The
Internet has made the practice more common with web sites
posting images and buying pictures from high tech peeping
toms and telling users where to buy hidden cameras. Those
web sites basically promote the practice as well as
encourage it. The bill is designed to protect the privacy
of all the residents in the State of Alaska.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if the legislation resulted from an
extension of an existing problem in the Mat-Su Valley. Ms.
Henderson acknowledged that it had. There were no previous
civil statutes which allowed people to file for civil
liabilities in these cases.
Representative Davies referenced Page 2, Line 5, and asked
what "viewed and photographed" meant. Ms. Henderson
explained that a problem exists with using photographs and
then posting them on the Internet.
Representative Davies asked if the fine would be $5,000 per
day for each day the photograph was up. Ms. Henderson
replied that was correct.
Representative Davies reiterated concerns with language on
Page 2, Line 5. He requested more information regarding the
class of penalty it would be.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
AGENCY, explained that the language refers to a part of a
civil penalty. It stipulates that each day that a person is
viewed and photographed, there would be a separate $5,000
penalty. Earlier in that provision, the language provides
for a $100 dollar accounting for each photograph made.
There are different alternatives provided and the
legislation provides for a separate scheme for each day that
the viewing takes place. A Class A misdemeanor provides for
a $5,000 fine. In Section 2, a new crime, improper viewing,
is made which would be a Class A misdemeanor. The maximum
penalty for that would be one year in jail and a $5,000
dollar fine.
Representative Davies pointed out that the fine would be
assessed each day that the person was viewed or photographed
improperly. He asked what the phrase "photograph was
viewed" would encompass. Mr. Luckhaupt explained that
language was drafted in order to provide the concept of the
fine for the viewing or photographing.
Representative Davies reiterated his concern with the Class
A misdemeanor and the associated penalty. He suggested that
a cap be placed on the amount. A Class C felony typically
has a $50,000 dollar fine which he thought was too much.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT an amendment to Page 2,
Lines 4 & 5, including an "up to" amount perhaps in the
neighborhood of $15,000 dollars. Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED
for discussion.
Representative Whitaker asked why the penalty should be
reduced.
Representative Davies WITHDREW his MOTION.
Representative Croft commented on language indicated on Page
2, Lines 8-12, regarding the concealed camera. He stated
that under the bill, it would be a crime for knowingly and
"surreptitiously" viewing inside a house. Mr. Luckhaupt
stated that that the surreptitiously viewing would be a
viewing that is unnatural and suspicious. Discussion
followed on the meaning of "surreptitiously". Mr. Luckhaupt
noted that the dictionary definition of surreptitious
viewing would be something like hiding from behind a bush
peering through the blinds. Representative Croft questioned
if the person in the interior of the house would determine
if it was surreptitious or not.
Vice-Chair Bunde referenced language on Page 2, Lines 3-4,
and asked about the civil penalty. He questioned if the
case could be taken on contingency. Mr. Luckhaupt advised
that the penalty was provided under the civil scheme in the
first section of the bill. The first penalty would be the
person's actual damages, Page 1, Line 10; there would be a
penalty placed on the person for every picture they produced
from the illegal viewing and there would be a penalty placed
on them for $5,000 for each day that they do the action. He
stressed that the penalty was designed in order to encourage
people not to partake in the conduct.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that the upper limit of the fine
would be determined in Court. Mr. Luckhaupt stated that the
victim of the offense, the plaintiff, would have to prove
how many days that person had been illegally viewed or
photographed.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if the fine would be mandatory. Mr.
Luckhaupt advised that it would not be a typical criminal
situation. The Court would impose the fine and penalties.
He emphasized that it is important to provide some incentive
that the person not engage in the illegal videotaping.
Representative Davies commented that most people do not know
the law even though they have a general moral sense that the
behavior is improper. He argued that ending up with a $3
million dollar fine could create a very bad situation. He
urged that a limit be placed on the crime. He emphasized
that the legislation provides for no limit.
Co-Chair Williams questioned the limit for civil actions.
Mr. Luck advised that there is not a limit. In such a case,
other provisions and damages suffered by the person could be
unlimited.
Ms. Henderson noted that the discussion was being focused on
the monetary amount indicated in the bill. She insisted
that there is no monetary cap which can be placed on a
person's privacy. Representative Davies agreed, however,
pointed out that there is no way to determine the value of
"privacy"; the way that is usually used to determine it is
by setting a class of penalty. He stated that the question
is: "Does this crime equal ten felonies?" He stressed that
there must be some kind of rational used in determining the
penalty scheme.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if the sponsor would consider
compromise in that language.
Representative Lancaster agreed that a person could not put
a value on their privacy. He believed that society needs a
message that the fine would be unlimited. Representative
Davies argued that there should be a rational between the
penalty scale and the level of the crime.
Ms. Henderson stated that the sponsor would consider
amending the language. Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED a conceptual
amendment to Page 2, Line 4, inserting "up to" before
"$5,000 a day". Representative Lancaster OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Harris, Hudson, Moses, Whitaker,
Bunde
OPPOSED: Foster, Lancaster
Representative Mulder and Representative Croft were not
present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-2).
Representative Whitaker questioned who could be found liable
under the language in the bill. Mr. Luckhaupt replied that
Section 1 of the bill provides for civil penalties; Section
2 of the bill provides for the criminal penalty for improper
viewing of photography and Section 3 of the bill amends the
current law for indecent viewing of photography. Section 3
is the portion of the bill addressing the viewing of private
exposure of the genitals, anus or female breasts of another
person.
Representative Whitaker questioned how much the legislation
addressed the person viewing the photographs on the
Internet. Mr. Luckhaupt explained that the person that does
the viewing, would not be the person prosecuted.
Representative Whitaker inquired the place in the
legislation, which precludes a person sitting in his or her
own home and viewing. Mr. Luckhaupt referenced language in
Sections 2 & 3, Page 2, Line 7.
Representative Whitaker voiced concern that in that
language, the person would be held liable for improperly
viewing if that person was knowingly viewing. He asked if
"surreptitiously" was the key word. Mr. Luck advised that
when you are sitting in your own home, you are not viewing a
person in his or her own home. Someone that is viewing the
person in his or her own home, is the person committing the
offense.
Representative Whitaker asked if the person viewing a web
cam in the privacy of his or her own home would be
precluded. They would be a third party to the production of
that site. Mr. Luckhaupt replied that a web cam was a
closed circuit. Representative Whitaker stated that he
wanted to guarantee that a person watching the web would not
be subject to prosecution. Mr. Luckhaupt noted that he did
not perceive that person would be guilty of viewing.
Representative Whitaker asked if a person living in
Anchorage and viewing a picture produced in Southeast would
be subject to prosecution. Mr. Luckhaupt reiterated that he
did not believe that they would be subject to prosecution.
Representative Whitaker agreed that it is important to
establish the definition of "surreptitiously" viewed. Mr.
Luckhaupt suggested that the Committee could draft a Letter
of Intent clarifying the meaning of that section and that
viewing secondary exposure of photographs or videotape would
not be subject to prosecution.
Representative Hudson asked what portion of the bill would
preclude someone viewing through the Internet, be held
harmless. He understood that the intent of the bill was to
address "peeping toms".
Co-Chair Williams stated that HB 125 would be HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
TAPE HFC 01 - 97, Side B
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
An Act relating to a new optional group of persons
eligible for medical assistance who require treatment
for breast or cervical cancer; and providing for an
effective date.
NANCY WELLER, STATE, FEDERAL & TRIBAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF
MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, stated that during the past year, Congress passed
legislation to improve health care for women by extending
Medicaid coverage for treatment of breast and cervical
cancer. In the interest of improving Alaskans' health care,
the bill would allow the State to take advantage of this
program.
Ms. Weller stated that by opting into this new Medicaid
program, uninsured women who have been diagnosed with breast
or cervical cancer under a federally financed screening
program, would be eligible for treatment. In Alaska, that
could mean some 70 women or so per year, who could not
otherwise afford cancer treatment, would be able to receive
care.
Ms. Weller continued, the federal program began in 1990 when
Congress passed the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality
Prevention Act establishing the Center for Disease Control's
(CDC) national breast and cervical cancer early detection
program. The CDC program provides grants for screening exams
to millions of people who meet eligibility guidelines
throughout the country each year, including Alaska. The
grantees provide clinical breast exams, pelvic exams and
mammograms.
She noted that unfortunately, federal money did not provide
for follow-up treatment to any of the uninsured persons
diagnosed with cancer, until now. With last year's Breast
and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act signed into
law, states may select a new Medicaid option to cover cancer
treatments of uninsured women diagnosed under the CDC early
detection program.
The American Cancer Society estimated 182,800 new cases of
invasive breast cancer and 12,800 new cases of invasive
cervical cancer expected to occur among women in the United
States during the year, resulting in an estimated 45,400
deaths. As a result of the recent congressional action,
diagnosed, uninsured, low-income persons can receive the
treatment needed to save their lives. In order to extend
the program to Alaskan women, she urged the Committee's
action on this legislation.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out the letter received by members
from Senator Murkowski, encouraging forward movement of the
legislation.
In response to Representative Harris' question, Ms. Weller
noted that it would be an optional coverage group.
Representative Lancaster questioned if the legislation were
to be passed, if anyone would be turned away. Ms. Weller
replied that there are a certain number of providers that
are enrolled in the screening. If a person has insurance,
they would not be eligible for Medicaid.
KAREN PERDUE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, commented that the Department supports the bill.
She urged that the bill be passed out of Committee.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to report CS HB 65 (HES) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 65 (HES) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note #1 by Department
of Health & Social Services dated 1/16/01.
HOUSE BILL NO. 58
An Act relating to the calculation and payment of
unemployment compensation benefits; and providing for
an effective date.
REBECCA NANCE-GAMEZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, stated that Alaska's
economy includes many seasonal industries with employees who
rely on their unemployment benefits to fill the gaps between
times of work. The current rate of unemployment insurance
payments falls short in helping families cover living
expenses. Alaska's unemployment insurance provides the
lowest percentage of the State's average weekly wage of any
state. Alaska's maximum weekly benefit amount of $248 ranks
th
To correct the inadequacy, HB 58 has been transmitted to
increase unemployment insurance benefits and then index the
benefits to the State's average weekly wage, so that future
adjustments would be automatic and synchronized to the
State's economy.
Ms. Nance-Gamez commented that under the bill, the maximum
weekly benefit amount would increase January 1, 2002, to
$284. Those earning $31,250 or more per year would be
eligible for the maximum benefit. A year later, the maximum
weekly benefit amount would be indexed to the average weekly
wage in the State for the preceding fiscal year, set at
fifty percent of that wage. Based on current projections,
the maximum weekly benefit amount in 2003 would be $320 for
those claimants who earned $35,500 or more. She urged
support for the legislation
BILL CRAMER, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, responded to questions by Co-Chair Williams and
noted that the State of Alaska is last and that the
percentage of the average weekly wage is 32%; the next
lowest paying state is Illinois at a 38% replacement of the
average weekly wage. The average weekly cost of a living
wage increase was in 1996, moving from $212 to $248 dollars.
Representative Foster asked the employee and employer
percentage being paid. Ms. Nance-Gamez replied that in
Alaska, employers pay 80%. New Jersey is the other state
that has an employer's contribution.
PAM LABOLLE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
JUNEAU, stated that the increase proposed would increase
unemployment compensation by 29% above the present level.
Alaska employers would pay the cost of the increase, which
would be $10 million dollars. The Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce believes that the increase would be exorbitant.
She noted that the State Chamber does oppose the
legislation.
Representative Hudson asked the first year cost to the
employer. Ms. LaBolle responded that if the increase were
$10 million dollars, the first year increase would be $3.5
million dollars.
DON ETHERIDGE, ALASKA STATE AFL-CIO, JUNEAU, voiced strong
support for the legislation. He noted that the proposed
legislation was the number one priority this year for the
Union.
KIM GARNERO, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, addressed the fiscal note. She stated that
the State of Alaska is a reimbursable employer for
employment insurance purposes. The State pays tax
contributions based on the employers experience rating and
the employees contribute. The State reimburses the fund for
actual payments made to former employees.
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1. [Copy on
File]. He asked Ms. LaBolle to speak to the amendment. Co-
Chair Williams OBJECTED for purposes of discussion.
Ms. LaBolle explained that the amendment would supports the
position of the State Chamber of Commerce that an increase
only occurs on the first level.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Mulder
OPPOSED: Bunde, Croft, Davies, Harris, Hudson,
Lancaster, Whitaker
Representative Moses was not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-8).
Representative J. Davies MOVED to report CS HB 58 (L&C) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 58 (L&C) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal note #1 by Department
of Labor and Workforce Development, #2 by Department of
Administration and #4 by the University of Alaska.
HOUSE BILL NO. 175
An Act making an appropriation to the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority for power projects;
and providing for an effective date.
Representative Lancaster MOVED to ADOPT the committee
substitute HB 175 (FIN), 22-LS0705\R, Cramer, 4/26/01, as
the version of the bill before the Committee. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was adopted as the working document.
Representative Lancaster explained the changes made to the
proposed version of the legislation.
Vice-Chair Bunde inquired the cost to the State.
TAPE HFC 01 - 98, Side A
KATELYN MARKLEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEVELOPMENT
SPECIALIST, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & EXPORT AUTHORITY
(AIDEA), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
ANCHORAGE, explained that if the Committee decided to look
into compound interest for the next twenty years, a number
could be determined. She added that AIDEA does not use
general fund money, and as such, it would not be a direct
cost to the State.
Representative Lancaster thought that some project involved
with Power Cost Equalization (PCE) would have some amount to
offset the interest.
Representative Hudson understood that the balance would be
taken from the Railbelt Energy Fund. Representative
Lancaster stated that was not correct. The total would be
$101 million dollars which would come out of the Capital
Budget Reserve (CBR). Vice-Chair Bunde discussed the cost
of inflation which would be "eaten".
Representative Whitaker spoke to the cost of lost earnings
and then taking no action. He urged that all factors be
taken into consideration, as well as taking no action.
Representative Croft asked the significance of putting it
into the Railbelt Energy Fund since that is not the funding
source. Representative Lancaster advised that could pay
back the Railbelt Energy Fund. Representative Harris
responded that was the intent, but it was not the manner in
which the bill had been written. He proposed that the
drafting of the bill should be scrutinized.
Representative Croft referenced Page 3, the lapse
provisions, which would lapse back into the CBR. He asked
where the loans would be paid. Representative Lancaster
commented that the payback would be to the Railbelt Energy
Fund.
Representative Hudson asked further clarification regarding
the $100 million dollar loan being paid back to the Railbelt
Energy Fund. Representative Lancaster replied that was the
intent.
Vice-Chair Bunde stated that HB 175 would be HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 238
An Act relating to the power transmission intertie fund
of the Alaska Energy Authority.
Representative Lancaster stated that HB 238 was the
mechanism that the Department of Law recommended to change
the statute to allow AIDEA to receive the funds and have the
authority to spend those funds.
HB 238 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
#HB125
HOUSE BILL NO. 125
An Act relating to unlawful and indecent viewing and
photography and to civil damages and penalties for that
viewing and photography.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 125 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
attached fiscal notes. Representative Croft OBJECTED.
Representative Croft stressed that a $5,000 fine to look out
of window was not appropriate and allowed for too broad of a
net. He stated that it is the job of the Legislature to
write precise language in criminal code. He urged that more
time be allowed to address the proposed language. He
emphasized that vague language should not be accompanied by
a Letter of Intent to clarify it.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that if adults were viewing
pornography from their own homes, they would not be charged.
Ms. Henderson advised that HB 125 was an excellent bill.
She maintained that everyone deserves the right to protect
their personal privacy. Through the legislation, if the
right of privacy were violated, then there would be a civil
avenue to address it.
Representative Croft reiterated his concerns. There is a
category of conduct that is inappropriate in the action of
viewing, clothed or unclothed. Mr. Luckhaupt stated if you
could see someone and the blinds were open, that would not
be surreptitious viewing. It could be contained within the
use of the term or device. He noted that it was not his
intent that the "view" would be an expectation of privacy.
Someone who is not aware that they are being viewed could be
"surreptitiously" viewed.
Representative Croft referenced Page 2, Line 28, the
"private exposure". He reiterated that the "surreptitious"
viewing is not clear language. He reiterated that Section 1
was fine, however, Section 2 was problematic.
Representative Croft WITHDREW his OBJECTION and noted that
he would work on an amendment for the House Floor. There
being NO further OBJECTIONS, the legislation was adopted.
CS HB 125 (FIN) was adopted with a "individual
recommendations" and with fiscal notes by the #1-Department
of Law dated 4/20/01, #2-the Alaska Court System dated
4/20/01, and #3-Department of Administration dated 4/20/01.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|