Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/14/2000 01:30 PM House JUD
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 14, 2000 1:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Pete Kott, Chairman Representative Joe Green Representative Norman Rokeberg Representative Jeannette James Representative Lisa Murkowski Representative Eric Croft Representative Beth Kerttula MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 294 "An Act relating to violations of an order to submit to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing, to court orders and conditions of parole to collect samples for DNA testing, to removal of material from the DNA identification registration system; and to the collection and processing of samples from certain burglary perpetrators for the DNA identification registration system; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 294(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 409 "An Act prescribing the rights of grandparents related to hearings on petitions to adjudicate a minor as a child in need of aid and to the testimony of grandparents at those hearings; and amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 15, 17(e), and 19, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules." - MOVED CSSSHB 409(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska to guarantee the permanent fund dividend, to provide for inflation proofing, and to require a vote of the people before changing the statutory formula for distribution that existed on January 1, 2000. - HEARD AND HELD CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(L&C) "An Act relating to insurance trade practices; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 294 SHORT TITLE: DNA TESTING & REGISTRATION Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/21/00 1958 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/21/00 1958 (H) JUD, FIN 1/21/00 1958 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 1/21/00 1958 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 1/21/00 1958 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 3/29/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 3/29/00 (H) Heard & Held 3/29/00 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 4/14/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 409 SHORT TITLE: GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS REGARDING CINA Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/16/00 2220 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 2/16/00 2221 (H) HES, JUD, FIN 2/23/00 2278 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED 2/23/00 2279 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 2/23/00 2279 (H) HES, JUD, FIN 2/25/00 2315 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOOKESH 3/23/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 3/23/00 (H) Heard & Held 3/23/00 (H) MINUTE(HES) 4/06/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 4/06/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 4/11/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 4/11/00 (H) Moved CSSSHB 409(HES) Out of Committee 4/11/00 (H) MINUTE(HES) 4/13/00 3106 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 5DP 1NR 4/13/00 3107 (H) DP: GREEN, DYSON, COGHILL, WHITAKER, 4/13/00 3107 (H) KEMPLEN; NR: BRICE 4/13/00 3107 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS) 4/14/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HJR 49 SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: PERM FUND INCOME DISTRIBUTION Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/31/00 2044 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/31/00 2044 (H) STA, JUD, FIN 2/02/00 2075 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON 2/11/00 2188 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MASEK 2/21/00 2259 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT 4/04/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/04/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 4/06/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/06/00 (H) Moved CSHJR 49(STA) Out of Committee 4/06/00 (H) MINUTE(STA) 4/07/00 2913 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 1DP 4DNP 2NR 4/07/00 2913 (H) DP: OGAN; DNP: JAMES, SMALLEY, KERTTULA 4/07/00 2913 (H) HUDSON; NR: GREEN, WHITAKER 4/07/00 2913 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 4/07/00 2913 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY 4/13/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/13/00 (H) Heard & Held 4/13/00 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 4/14/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 177 SHORT TITLE: INSURANCE TRADE PRACTICES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 5/16/99 1517 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 5/16/99 1517 (S) L&C 1/18/00 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211 1/18/00 (S) Heard & Held 1/18/00 (S) MINUTE(L&C) 2/29/00 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211 2/29/00 (S) Moved CS(L&C) Out of Committee 2/29/00 (S) MINUTE(L&C) 3/01/00 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203 3/01/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 3/01/00 2476 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 3NR 1AM SAME TITLE 3/01/00 2476 (S) NR: MACKIE, TIM KELLY, HOFFMAN; 3/01/00 2476 (S) DP: DONLEY; AM: LEMAN 3/01/00 2476 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 3/22/00 2692 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR AND 1 AM 03/22/00 3/22/00 2693 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 3/22/00 2693 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 3/22/00 2693 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 3/22/00 2693 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 177(L&C) 3/22/00 2693 (S) PASSED Y19 N1 3/22/00 2694 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 3/22/00 2697 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 3/23/00 2661 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 3/23/00 2662 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN 4/10/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 4/10/00 (H) Heard & Held 4/10/00 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 4/12/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 4/12/00 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 177(L&C) Out of Committee 4/12/00 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 4/14/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 WITNESS REGISTER DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Safety PO Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 294. BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director Alaska Public Defender Agency 900 W Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 294. GEORGE TAFT, Director Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory Department of Public Safety 5500 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 294. LEANE STRICKLAND, Criminalist IV Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory Department of Public Safety 5500 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 294. CHRIS BEHEIM, Criminalist IV Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory Department of Public Safety 5500 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 294. CANDACE BROWER, Parole Board Officer Parole Board Department of Corrections PO Box 112000 Juneau, Alaska 99811 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 294. REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 104 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 409. REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 432 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HJR 49. RONALD LORENSEN, Attorney One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 300 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HJR 49. SHELTON GREEN, Staff to Senator Lyda Green Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 125 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HJR 49. SENATOR DAVE DONLEY Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 508 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for SB 177. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-61, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, James, and Kerttula. Representatives Croft and Murkowski arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB 294 - DNA TESTING & REGISTRATION Number 0030 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 294, "An Act relating to violations of an order to submit to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing, to court orders and conditions of parole to collect samples for DNA testing, to removal of material from the DNA identification registration system; and to the collection and processing of samples from certain burglary perpetrators for the DNA identification registration system; and providing for an effective date." Number 0078 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, said he had testified a couple of weeks ago on HB 294 when Representative Croft expressed concerns that an individual had to obtain a court order in order to have deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) removed if the individual was found not guilty or the conviction was reversed. He noted that along with Anne Carpeneti, Department of Law, they had developed a potential amendment that would hopefully address Representative Croft's concerns. He explained that HB 294 is a bill that expands requirements of who must give DNA to include those who commit felony burglary and the reason for that is that statistics indicate that nationally 52 percent of people who have committed burglaries also committed violent crimes subsequently. He commented that if law enforcement has the DNA earlier from felony convictions then law enforcement might be able to prevent or solve some violent crimes sooner. MR. SMITH mentioned that HB 294 also expands who [has authority to] take a DNA sample as technology has changed since the original bill was written in 1995 when the department just took a blood [sample]. Now the department wants to expand the 1995 law to allow a juvenile or adult correctional probation officer, a probation officer, a parole officer or a peace officer to take a DNA sample. He repeated that those are the primary changes in HB 294 and the bill would be retroactive to January 1, 1996 for convictions or felonies that have occurred since that time. Number 0274 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked how oral samples are taken. MR. SMITH replied that originally a DNA sample required blood and that is why the original law stipulated that a medical person or health care professional had to take the sample. However, technology has evolved rather quickly since 1995 and the sample now can be taken in a non-intrusive manner with an oral swab which is placed in a container that is marked and given to the lab. CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to what kind of container is used to transport the swab sample and what is the time line, if there is one, for ensuring that the DNA sample is transmitted, received, and analyzed before it has lost its [viability]. MR. SMITH answered that pursuant to the 1995 creation of the registry the department had been freezing any sample collections, blood or otherwise, in the lab. However, in just the last several months the department has begun processing those samples. He informed the committee that frozen samples last indefinitely. He explained that the samples are taken out [of the freezer], processed, and the DNA profile is created. He observed that an officer, a parole officer, or somebody else can take a DNA sample, put it into a small container, get it to the lab, and then the sample would be frozen until there was time to process it. Number 0364 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if Mr. Smith could amplify the rationale for being retroactive to January 1, 1996. MR. SMITH replied that January 1, 1996, is when the department started taking all of the DNA samples that are currently in the DNA database for convictions and violent crimes; it seemed to make sense that the department would collect [samples] for convictions from that period if DNA samples were to be expanded to include burglary. However, he recognized that the department is concerned about making HB 294 retroactive, but those convictions presumably have not gone away since 1996. If they [those convictions] have gone away then the individual is no longer convicted and would not be subject to HB 294. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if DNA samples collected in 1996 are stored somewhere. MR. SMITH replied that samples taken in 1996 to the present are stored at the crime lab in a refrigerator freezer so that they do not deteriorate. Number 0450 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that HB 294 expands [DNA collection] authority to a different class of crime (burglaries). Therefore, he inquired as to how the department has DNA samples in its possession for this class of crime if the department did not have authority to collect [DNA samples] from this class of crime in 1996. MR. SMITH answered that is true. However, if the legislature were to pass HB 294 and make it retroactive for burglary convictions since January 1, 1996, the department would have to make contact with those people who had been convicted since that date and attempt to make the collection. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to what happens if convicted people refuse [to allow DNA collection]. He assumed that the department has the power to force collection of DNA samples. MR. SMITH replied that refusal under the current law to give a sample is a misdemeanor crime, however, he cannot anticipate a situation where the department would hold a convicted person down and forcibly take a DNA sample. Number 0528 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Smith to assume that he has a burglary that goes back to 1996 and then asked if he would really retroactively track down convicted burglars and try to obtain a DNA sample. MR. SMITH suggested that it may be that some of these individuals are incarcerated now and thus would be easy to find. He emphasized that the law does give the department authority to go back and find these individuals whether they are on probation or parole and request a sample. Number 0585 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the department was doing DNA tests in 1996. MR. SMITH explained that the department started taking the first samples in 1996, but did not process any of those samples because when the original law, HB 27, passed technology was in flux. He informed the committee that the department had just obtained staff and processing equipment last year under a federal grant to start processing and loading into a national combined database called CODIS (Combined DNA Index System). He remarked that technology had moved from one in a couple of million discrimination about who the individual was to today's technology where one in one billion is the current level. He added that the department had waited until last year to start processing because the department wanted to get the latest technology and national standard. Number 0685 BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Alaska Public Defender Agency, commented that it is a good idea to allow peace officers and juvenile adult corrections officers to collect samples rather than just medical personnel since the sample can be easily taken by a swab. However, he noted that his agency is concerned about the change made to Section 6 which he has not seen yet. He explained that his agency does not like the idea of a required court order to destroy the material or get the material out of the hands of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) if someone is found not guilty or acquitted. He commented that the Alaska Public Defender Agency does not represent people in criminal proceedings so the agency would not have a lawyer to help request a court order since a court order is usually done by an administrative proceeding through DPS directly. Therefore, he mentioned that he was glad to hear that there are perhaps some changes to that section and he would be happy to review them. MR. McCUNE emphasized that the main problem for the agency is the bill's expansion into burglary. He estimated that in Alaska annually there are roughly 900 people arrested for burglary, which is a huge additional amount of samples that would have to be collected and stored. He indicated that HB 294 is an invasion of privacy, but he guessed that the theory is that people who commit burglary also may commit further offenses, namely, sexual offenses. However, many youthful offenders commit burglaries and are successfully rehabilitated and do not commit further offenses. Therefore, he indicated that in view of the problems that DPS acknowledges they have in testing the samples already in their possession, the agency does not see how having additional samples collected is a wise idea. Number 0883 CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee that the amendment that has been offered would change a little bit of the language in Section 6 of HB 294 which would then read, if the amendment were approved, "The Department of Public Safety shall upon receipt of a court order destroy the material in the system relating to a person. The court shall issue the order if it determines that..." and the rest of the language is the same. Therefore, the amendment removes the words "issued at the request of a person whose DNA has been collected under (b) of this section." MR. McCUNE said that the problem he had with HB 294 is that he is not sure how to obtain a court order. For example, he asked if someone wold have to file a law suit with the court to obtain a court order because the court would not have jurisdiction in the criminal case to [issue a court order on its own]. He noted that sometimes the court can issue orders when cases are dismissed for returned evidence which has been admitted. However, he explained that it is unclear to the agency whether Section 6 requires a separate civil action. Number 0992 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI turned to Mr. McCune's testimony that there had been problems with testing samples and so it was his recommendation that the legislature did not need to add to the numbers that the lab would be testing. She asked George Taft if the Public Safety crime laboratory has had problems with DNA testing samples. GEORGE TAFT, Director, Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He acknowledged that the lab has had problems in funding the testing. However, he noted that today he had signed a grant opportunity to get all of those samples analyzed by contracting out in the very near future. From a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant, he expected to get all of those samples analyzed expeditiously, probably within the next two or three months. Number 1040 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated her understanding that the problems experienced by the lab were funding problems rather than problems with how the lab is collecting or testing. MR. TAFT replied that her understanding was correct. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to the shelf life of these samples that the lab collects. MR. TAFT answered that these are dry, frozen samples and can be analyzed 400 years later. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the sample could be reduced after it has been analyzed into some type of film or photographic profile so that the lab does not have to keep the sample. MR. TAFT replied that the lab does have a profile. However, when a sample is matched in CODIS then the lab has to re-examine the sample to make sure that it does in fact match, which is the reason for keeping samples. LEANE STRICKLAND, Criminalist IV, Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory, Department of Public Safety, remarked that the lab does not want to destroy any evidence that has been analyzed because technology changes. She reminded the committee that technology has changed over the last five years and with changing technology the lab wants to continue to be able to analyze the samples as well as have samples if an analysis by an outside agency is requested for the defense. Number 1152 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the lab currently does DNA testing. MR. TAFT replied in the affirmative. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the samples that the lab will out source are from the lab's backlog. CHRIS BEHEIM, Criminalist IV, Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory, Department of Public Safety, observed that the grant is just for the backlog of convicted offender samples. He informed the committee that recently $15 million was appropriated by the federal government to address the nationwide backlog of convicted offender samples. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if Mr. Beheim could give the committee an idea of how many samples are on backlog. MR. BEHEIM answered that at the present time, since 1996, the lab has collected approximately 1900 samples and has analyzed 350 of those in house using the latest technology. However, he anticipated that the grant would pay for the remaining backlog. CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to where the outside analysis will be done. Number 1230 MR. BEHEIM explained that outside analysis will be put out to competitive bid to an outside lab that meets quality assurance guidelines specified by the DNA Advisory Board and strict accreditation guidelines. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if Mr. Beheim was aware of any qualified labs in Alaska. MR. BEHEIM answered that there are none at this time. CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to how long it takes to analyze one sample. MR. BEHEIM replied that the information that he is receiving from the grant people is that the laboratories who will be bidding are high production labs which, upon receipt of the samples, are capable of turning out samples in a matter of weeks. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Beheim if he could give the committee an idea of what it costs for each analysis. MR. BEHEIM answered that NIJ allows $50 for each sample and he had just heard from them that samples can be processed for as little as $35 for each sample on a competitive bid for convicted offender samples. Number 1301 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised that if there are about 1,000 samples of which the lab has analyzed 350, then there should be a backlog of 650 samples. MR. BEHEIM specified that there are approximately 1,600 backlog samples. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT related his understanding that Mr. McCune had said there were about 300 burglaries each year. He asked if the backlog at the lab had been built up over the last four years since 1996. MR. BEHEIM answered yes. Number 1392 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to how many samples the lab could analyze each year. MR. BEHEIM anticipated that the lab could probably analyze 100 samples each month. Although it is much more economical to contract out to a private lab capable of doing high volume using robots, the crime lab does case-related analysis which is much more time consuming and not suitable for contracting out. He noted that private labs wanted about $1,000, which does not include court testimony, for each case-related sample. Therefore, the whole purpose of the contract is to deal with convicted offender samples which are more adapted toward automation and the use of [robots]. He pointed out that nationwide there are approximately 750,000 samples that have been collected and need to be analyzed due to new technology, and the number is growing all the time. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if [DPS's] fiscal note for the laboratory services component was zero due to the grant because if there are 300 new cases each year and they cost $1,000, then it is going to cost the state $300,000 each year to analyze samples. MR. BEHEIM replied that the 300 [new cases] each year would be additional convicted offenders if Alaska has that many burglaries. Those samples cost about $35 each to contract. He informed the committee that this is the first year grant money has been available and Congress has anticipated funding for the next number of years because of the great interest in the use of DNA technology to help solve crimes. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT acknowledged that although the collection is cheap at $35, the analysis is what costs money. MR. BEHEIM reiterated that analysis by a private lab set up with robotics and high volume is $35-$50. Number 1457 CHAIRMAN KOTT remarked that it would appear that the collection costs more than the analysis. He asked Mr. Taft what would become of NIJ grant money if HB 294 did not pass and the legislature did not authorize retroactivity for those 1,600 samples. MR. TAFT answered that the lab would not get the money unless the lab used it for analyzing convicted offender samples because the grant money is designated for [that] particular purpose. CHAIRMAN KOTT recognized that the grant money could only be used for analyzing convicted offender samples. He asked if the lab already had the grant or is it something for which the lab has to apply. Number 1499 MR. TAFT replied that he has the application ready to go and the deadline is May. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the committee had to add burglary to obtain the grant. MR. TAFT answered no. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to what the lab had to do to obtain the grant. MR. TAFT replied that the lab does not have to do anything other than apply for the grant. He specified that the grant addresses the sample backlog that the lab already has on hand. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT surmised, then, that it does not matter to the federal government whether the Alaska State Legislature passes HB 294 or not, in terms of the grant. MR. TAFT agreed because the grant just addresses the current backlog and grant money available in the future will also pay for samples that are collected. Number 1558 MR. SMITH said he wanted to comment on the court order. He noted that he had never anticipated that someone would have to file suit to get evidence out of the court. He explained that the reason the department wanted a court order and required that the individual request it is because the individual is probably the most motivated person who would pursue procedure to make sure that evidence was returned to that non-convicted individual. He commented that he wants an audit trail of why the DNA sample disappeared, which a court order would provide for the department. It is a way to keep everything above board. CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that he understood that in Mr. Smith's mind an individual would not have to litigate to regain possession of their DNA sample. MR. SMITH anticipated that if an individual was found not guilty or the conviction was reversed, the individual would contact the department or the district attorney and the authorities would ask the court to give the authorities an order to get rid of the DNA sample of that individual. He acknowledged that it had made sense for the individual to have some standing to go in and say that he/she wanted a court order. However, he had never anticipated that there would be a requirement for civil litigation, which does not make any sense to him. Number 1641 CHAIRMAN KOTT admitted that it did not make sense to him either. He asked Mr. McCune if he had heard Mr. Smith's remarks. Chairman Kott observed that Mr. McCune was gone. CANDACE BROWER, Parole Board Officer, Parole Board, Department of Corrections, urged the committee to consider the expansion of who is allowed to take DNA samples because it has been incumbent on the Department of Corrections (DOC) to collect the samples, however the narrow definition of medical personnel really limits who is able to do this in correctional facilities. She said that in view of the fiscal situation [DOC's] medical staff are stretched thin and the department would appreciate the flexibility to train correctional staff and probation officers to take samples. She echoed earlier testimony that taking DNA samples is a very simple process. She acknowledged that some are concerned about taking DNA samples and the privacy issue, but it is important to remember that DNA analysis also works to eliminate people from suspicion. She agreed that the effect of DNA analysis is double-edged. Number 1712 CHAIRMAN KOTT remarked that under the provisions of HB 294 correctional officers can conduct the test in correctional facilities. MS. BROWER answered yes, but reiterated that currently correctional officers cannot take DNA samples. CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired as to what kind of training she envisions. MS. BROWER informed the committee that DOC's medical staff has some authority to do some training of correctional officers for such things as dispensing medication. The training would be an in-house process. Number 1743 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Brower to assume that one of her correctional officers took the sample with a swab, placed the swab in a container, and dropped it on the floor. He asked if the correctional officer would have to take an additional sample. MS. BROWER answered that she did not know. CHAIRMAN KOTT continued with the illustration and asked if the correctional officer did have to take an additional sample, would the prisoner be subject to a misdemeanor crime [for refusing to give a second DNA sample]. MS. BROWER replied that she did not have an answer to that either. Furthermore, she was unsure if the tests are fragile. CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that he was sure that rubber gloves must be put on and the area sanitized. He asked Mr. Taft to speak to the illustration about what would happen if a sample swab was dropped. He asked Mr. Taft if dropping a swab would necessitate taking another swab. MR. TAFT deferred to Ms. Strickland. Number 1813 MS. STRICKLAND replied that if someone dropped a swab she would recommend that they take another swab, however, testing at the lab is only going to react with DNA. She pointed out that the lab can determine if there is any problem with contamination. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the lab could use the existing first sample if the convicted defendant decided he/she did not want to give another sample. MS. STRICKLAND reiterated the recommendation to take another sample, however the first sample could be analyzed and it could be whether there additional DNA is present other than DNA from one individual. CHAIRMAN KOTT said maybe that is the answer. He related his understanding that a convicted individual would not be subject to another misdemeanor crime [for refusal to give another DNA sample] because the first sample could be analyzed. MS. STRICKLAND answered yes. CHAIRMAN KOTT remarked that it may be a little more difficult but he is sure that with today's technology it can be done. Number 1868 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if tobacco or some other substance in the mouth would have an effect [on the sample]. He thought that other substances would have an effect, and therefore dropping a swab on the floor, unless the floor was extremely sterile, could contaminate the swab. MS. STRICKLAND agreed that dropping a swab on the floor is not what the lab would choose and in such a case the lab would hope that another sample would be collected. She reminded the committee that if additional DNA was present on the floor, it would be detected on the swab. Furthermore, as she had testified previously, it has been shown that there are some substances, such as tobacco, that can block the process wherein no DNA typing [occurs]. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked "then why not take two samples?" MS. STRICKLAND agreed that would be a good option. CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that maybe two samples would be the answer. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed with Chairman Kott and mentioned that normally both swabs would not be dropped. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether the person would have to give the second sample. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that the two swabs should be taken at the same time. CHAIRMAN KOTT remarked that this is something that can be worked out internally. He announced that there is an amendment on the table and he is not sure where it originated. Number 1945 MR. SMITH noted that the amendment developed as a result of concerns mentioned by Representative Croft during a hearing a couple of weeks ago. The department asked Ms. Carpeneti, Department of Law, to draft the amendment and the amendment was provided to Chairman Kott's staff yesterday just in case Chairman Kott wanted to consider it. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI offered Amendment 1 which read: Page 3, line 13: After "order" insert: "," Page 3, line 14: delete all material Page 3, line 15: delete "section," Page 3, line 15: delete "the [A]" and insert: "a" REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented Amendment 1 is fine. CHAIRMAN KOTT related his understanding from Mr. Smith that although Amendment 1 will address Representative Croft's concern, Mr. Smith is neither partial nor impartial to it. Number 2013 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that he supported Amendment 1 and acknowledged that a court order should not be required at the request of a person but rather the court order should be part of a regular administrative process. He said he is not even sure a court order is needed but at least it should not be solely at the request of the person. He mentioned that he had considered an arrangement whereby the court would make a list each year of people who had been acquitted and have their records expunged. Number 2040 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was any objection to the adoption of Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved to delete everything [from HB 294] except those sections that allow the Department of Corrections to broaden its [authority] in regard to who can collect samples; thereby allowing correctional officers to collect samples as well as medical personnel. She said that HB 294 is just too great a step at this moment. Although the packet includes [information] that in other states there seems to be come correlation [between committing a burglary and progression on to a more violent crime], Representative Kerttula said she is not ready to take that step yet between burglars and offenders. CHAIRMAN KOTT called for an at-ease at 2:06 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 2:07 p.m. Number 2106 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that her proposed amendment removes Sections 5, 7, and 8. She pointed out that in Section 8 there is an effective date [after which] people's court order to get their samples removed will not be honored. [Indisc.] MR. SMITH informed the committee that he would prefer to have HB 294 remain as it came into the committee. However, at a minimum, the expansion of DOC's ability to authorize the taking of samples by correctional and parole officers is critical. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the legislature had adopted this DNA identification system in 1995, and therefore she assumes that most of the other states have adopted similar registration systems. MR. SMITH replied that he believed that all 50 states have adopted DNA registration systems and Alaska is one of nine states that have signed on to the national system. Number 2181 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked where do the other states fall in terms of taking samples from burglars. MR. SMITH answered that there are several states which take samples from burglars. He informed the committee that in his research he had found that burglars were included [in DNA testing] based upon statistics which show that 52 percent of convicted burglars went on to commit and were caught for a violent crime later. Although he did not know how many states test burglars for DNA, he has heard that some states want to go as far as testing for DNA at the time of arrest. He thinks that is going too far. He noted that the department had retained DNA testing just for felony burglary convictions because the department sees a nexus between burglary and violent crimes. Number 2230 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the 52 percent figure is an Alaskan or national statistic. MR. SMITH clarified that the 52 percent figure is from Florida, Virginia, and a couple of other states; it is not an Alaskan statistic. MR. SMITH answered, in response to Representative Murkowski, that he was not able to find statistics to support the burglary theory in Alaska. Number 2257 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said there was no objection to Amendment 2. CHAIRMAN KOTT replied that there was an objection. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI remarked that she appreciates where the department is coming from with HB 294 as well as the department's request to recognize the code of burglary as a gateway crime. However, she expressed the need to ensure that the legislature has all possible information to prosecute those crimes, and therefore she wishes that the committee had a little more [information] than the generalities presented today. She announced that she has not yet decided about Amendment 2. Number 2307 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG related his belief that Amendment 2 is a good amendment, which he is supporting. He referred to the rest of HB 294 as a "Clockwork Orange" bill or "Big Brother" stepping up. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed that Amendment 2 is difficult and she feels like she would like to do everything possible to solve crimes, especially sexual offenses. However, the cases she has had involving burglary do not [support the notion that] burglary [led a violent crime]. Therefore, she does not think there is a very high standard of evidence to get the committee to pass HB 294. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Croft, Kerttula, Rokeberg, and James voted for the amendment. Representatives Murkowski, Green and Kott voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 passed by a vote of 4-3. Number 2402 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to move HB 294 as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. She pointed out that the title change will be necessary. CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that a title change will be necessary and he noted that he will make a request for that. He asked if there was any objection to the motion. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected. He said that HB 294 had been gutted and the committee does not have anything before it. He asked why should the books be cluttered up with nothing? REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that there was a substantial amount of testimony stating that it is important to authorize correctional officers the ability to take DNA samples rather than just medical doctors. He acknowledged that Representative Green is correct in that the committee is not expanding HB 294 to other crimes yet but is only considering crimes against the person. He explained that DOC did want to have the ability to authorize more people to take DNA samples so that DOC did not have to have doctors do it all the time. Although HB 294 does not make a major step into a whole new policy area or expanding a policy area on burglaries, it does achieve something technical which DOC says it needs. Therefore, he mentioned that he will vote to move the bill. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that he thinks HB 294 is a great bill and will save costs. CHAIRMAN KOTT remarked that he does not know how much effort is required to swab somebody's mouth but there are Q-tips to buy. He called for a brief at ease at 2:22 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 2:23 p.m. TAPE 00-61, SIDE B A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Croft, Kerttula, Rokeberg, James, Murkowski and Kott voted in favor of moving the bill. Representative Green voted against it. Therefore, HB 294 as amended, CSHB 294(JUD), moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1. HB 409-GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS REGARDING CINA Number 0033 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 409, "An Act prescribing the rights of grandparents related to hearings on petitions to adjudicate a minor as a child in need of aid and to the testimony of grandparents at those hearings; and amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 15, 17(e), and 19, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules." [Before the committee is CSSSHB 409(HES).] REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, said that last year the legislature passed a bill that allowed foster parents to have a voice at child-in-need-of-aid (CINA) hearings, treatment plans and placement for children. This bill, HB 409, is very similar and adds grandparents to the list of people who should be given the opportunity to be advised of what is happening and to speak in court in relation to their grandchildren. He clarified that HB 409 does not make grandparents a party in a legal sense rather only that they be informed and have a chance to have a voice [because] often grandparents are the most stable influence in the lives of children in dysfunctional homes. He mentioned that the Department of Law raised the point in the House Health, Education & Social Services Committee (HES) that some children, due to broken, mixed, melded and merged families may have more than a dozen folks claiming to be grandparents. He informed the committee that the HES committee amendment made limits grandparents to those grandparents that identify themselves and can demonstrate that they have a biological relationship to the children. He urged the committee to move HB 409. Number 0108 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move [CSSSHB 409(HES)] out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he did not want to object but wanted to clarify that HB 409 says "notice." He noted that he heard some of the HES hearings when people discussed how difficult it might be to notify grandparents and thus grandparents are in the special category of receiving a notice if they ask to be notified. He commented that asking to be notified is an imminently practical solution to that problem. CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the motion [to move CSSSHB 409(HES) from committee] has been made. There being no objection, CSSSHB 409(HES) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. HJR 49-CONST AM: PERM FUND INCOME DISTRIBUTION Number 0206 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska to guarantee the permanent fund dividend, to provide for inflation proofing, and to require a vote of the people before changing the statutory formula for distribution that existed on January 1, 2000. [Before the committee was CSHJR 49(STA).] REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, noted that he had distributed to committee members a list of people who had contacted Representative Green's office in support of HJR 49. [This list illustrates that] HJR 49 has [prompted] a fair amount of people contact the sponsor. He requested that the committee put HJR 49 up for vote [because] until the legislature takes the dividend program off the table, the legislature will not develop a long-term solution to the state's financial situation. Number 0254 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Ogan if he was aware that there have been some model studies indicating that if the legislature stays with the current way the formula uses the Permanent Fund (PF) earnings, the PF will eventually go the other way and will have to be re-determined. If the legislature puts HJR 49 into the constitution then the legislature does not have the opportunity to react. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN acknowledged that he is aware of those studies and said that 83 percent of the people who voted in the September 14, 1999 election did not believe in the study. He noted that the study is an indictment of the existing [PF] program which has been working for 18 years. He indicated that the study was based on many assumptions; for example, the study assumed that Alaska is never going to develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or gas-to-liquids (GTL) or the gas pipeline. He commented that the study had assumed that Alaska was an old state in "state years" and he takes issue with those assumptions since he tends to be a little bit more of an optimist about the future of Alaska. He mentioned that Alaska should not run on high just because some study said something. Although HJR 49 does inhibit the legislature's ability to do something, it does not eliminate their ability; it just raises the bar from a simple majority vote to a two-thirds vote. He specified that in the worst-case scenario happens then the legislature would react and could change the [PF] program and put it before the voters. He recognized that Representative Green was correct in that the legislature could not do it as easily as a statute change, but the legislature could still react. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that all it [the scenario] requires is the reversal of a bull market and the situation exists. He pointed out that historically a bull market cannot continue forever. Number 0357 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed everyone that Representative Green is referring to the "mother of all models" study done by Callan & Associates in January 2000, the study done prior to the plebiscite on September 14, 1999. Representative Rokeberg asked if Representative Ogan was aware of that. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that he was not aware of that; however, he thinks both studies came to the same conclusion. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that the studies did not come to the same conclusion; the Callan & Associates study was the first time a run had been done with actual numbers. He noted that Callan & Associates had presented the study to the Senate and House Finance Committees for the PF Corporation in order to brief the legislature about the effects of what would happen in "up and down" markets. Callan & Associates chose the decade of the '70s when there were three down years in a row and had shown impacts on the dividend and the inflation-proofing calculation under existing statute in view of the fact that the statute requires a pay back. Callan & Associates had concluded that without the very large amount of earnings reserve that was in place in January [2000] the PF Corporation could continue paying a dividend, but it would go down substantially. Representative Rokeberg envisioned that there would be a ten-year period when no inflation proofing would take place. If, after that time, the market came back up, the inflation proofing that had not been paid would have to be paid back [to the PF]. Therefore, the PF would always be behind. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG emphasized that the inflation-proofing formula in Alaska statute is broken. However, Representative Ogan has the temerity to come into this committee and tell this legislature that the people of the state should put into the constitution a piece of statute that does not even work correctly because Alaska has gotten away with an "up" market for years. For example, he mentioned that the particular Callan & Associates model was only for a three-down-year period with only 10 percent per year three years in a row. He indicated that the Nikkei average in Japan's stock market went down and stayed down ten solid years during the decade of the '90s. He acknowledged that the United States stock market is down 35 percent in the last 30 days on the Nasdaq and that the U.S. stock market had the biggest meltdown today that it has had since October '87. Therefore, he really thinks that HJR 49 is irresponsible. Number 0478 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked the Chairman to call a point of order as it is inappropriate for Representative Rokeberg to question people's motives. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that this is a working committee and the question is on the floor [for discussion]. He stated that he is not questioning Representative Ogan's motives rather he is questioning Representative Ogan's intellectual honesty when Representative Ogan talks to the voters of this state. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that if Representative Rokeberg had been present yesterday, Representative Rokeberg would have heard him say that he does not claim to be a financial expert and is willing to consider enshrining other models into the constitution. He viewed HJR 49 as a policy call because Alaska's PF program is seriously in need of protection. He reiterated that yesterday he did say there should be a discussion of perhaps a different formula. He indicated that the only way the public is going to trust the legislature is if the legislature constitutionally enshrines some use of the PF dividend program and this is the issue with which the legislature needs to come to grips if it ever plans to use the PF earnings reserve [with public consent]. He noted that when the PF was set aside the intention was [to provide government funds for a rainy day]. He recognized that HJR 49 is a committee call. He emphasized that he is open to discussion of what kind of formula to enshrine. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked permission to digress and talk about another bill or at least other concepts which are included in other legislation. He acknowledged that some of the concepts might be good, but there are parts that he does not like. Therefore, any concept should be kept in the context of what the formula is going to be and thus the committee should have the discussion and not "blow it [one concept, HJR 49,] out of the water" just because of somebody's study. Number 0567 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA announced that Mr. Lorensen, Attorney, is waiting on line. She informed the committee that Mr. Lorensen had testified in Senate Finance and had provided to her, which she in turn provided to committee members, the opinion of Morrison & Foerster. She mentioned that she had requested Mr. Lorensen's presence because there was question enough about the fund and the dividend program as it is and to her, it seems apparent that the committee does not have to wait for an opinion from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If HJR 49 passed, it is fairly obvious that the legislature would be jeopardizing the state's tax free status. Therefore, she had called Mr. Lorensen in order to get to the heart of that information. Number 0666 RONALD LORENSEN, Attorney, testifying via teleconference from Anchorage, said he has reviewed HJR 49. He noted that several different outside counsel opinions have been issued on the tax question over the years, a couple of [those opinions] date back to 1988. Those counsel opinions have not been released and probably will not be released because they raise important questions about taxes in relation to the fund. He explained that the counsel opinions had made some recommendations for changes, many of which have been made. Because of those changes made since 1988 a very strong basis has been provided for saying that under the current status the PF income would not be taxable under federal tax law. He pointed out he provided the Senate Finance Committee with the 1998 Morrison & Foerster opinion, which is now a matter of public record. That opinion did raise some important concerns in the context of a very similar proposal for a constitutional amendment that had been offered back in 1998. The 1998 proposal looked very similar to the one being heard both in the House and Senate this year. He indicated that the 1998 opinion really raised some important questions as to what the IRS would look for. MR. LORENSEN informed the committee that what the IRS would look for, which becomes the key question, as to whether or not the PF is a state fund and asset that is subject to taxation or not, is if the legislature would lose its ability to appropriate that money. He remarked that the key question is discussed in the opinion and the effect of the constitutional amendment is to do exactly that. This bill, HJR 49, would remove from the legislature the ability to decide what should happen to the income of the PF from year to year and cast in stone in the constitution the distribution mechanism, which is now in statute. He pointed out that the difference between the constitutional amendment and the statute is that when [the distribution mechanism] is in the constitution the legislature does not have the ability to change that distribution mechanism on its own. However, [with the distribution mechanism] in statute the legislature, at least in theory, retains the ability every year whether to decide to do something different with that income. He reiterated that as long as the legislature retains the ability to decide how that income would be distributed, the IRS would continue to be consider the PF as state income which is not subject to taxation. He specified that ultimately it comes down to: will the legislature retain the ability to decide what happens to that income for which the state would like to assert tax exempt status? Number 0826 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Mr. Lorensen is an attorney. MR. LORENSEN replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN inquired if Mr. Lorensen had seen the language in Section 3 of HJR 49. MR. LORENSEN answered that he has HJR 49. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he had put language in Section 3 to address the [IRS] question. He noted that he had acquired the idea from the gas pipeline situation in which the port authority requested an opinion from the IRS as to whether or not the gas pipeline would be taxable; apparently, the IRS had come back with a favorable ruling. He asked Mr. Lorensen if Section 3 would effectively settle the question. MR. LORENSEN stipulated that he is not a tax expert and not familiar with IRS tax procedures; however, he related his understanding that the IRS does not have to give a tax opinion in which case a person is left in limbo. In such a case, he did not know how a person would even address or anticipate that possibility in this kind of an effective date provision. He commented that the approach of the effective date provision made sense if a person could get a ruling from the IRS, however he is not confident that a person could count on the IRS actually taking a position. Number 0914 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that the constitutional amendment (HJR 49) does not happen until the IRS makes a ruling; however, he appreciated Mr. Lorensen's observations regarding a ruling from the IRS if the IRS did make a ruling. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked that he was playing with the "Mother of all Models" (MOMA) crash model numbers. He then turned to Section 3, which he thought said that "'final decision' means a ruling, order, or decision that cannot be appealed to the Internal Revenue Service." He asked if, at some point, someone could appeal an IRS ruling to the court. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied yes. MR. LORENSEN said that he does not know that the IRS can appeal its own ruling. However, he guessed that at some level of the IRS agency Section 3 contemplates that a determination would be made [with the idea that no appeal could be made because the determination was already made at the highest IRS level]. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT assumed that the legislature would have the right to take the determination to court if the legislature disagreed with the ruling. MR. LORENSEN replied that he did not know the answer. He reiterated that he did not know if the determination is in the context of litigation or if the legislature can file a court case just because the legislature did not like the IRS ruling. Number 0991 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that if it is just preliminary [ruling], it might not. However, if it is a ruling on an actual tax matter, then clearly the legislature has the right to have a court hearing if the legislature does not think it should be paying tax. MR. LORENSEN commented that Representative Croft's explanation might be right, but the legislature probably would not get to that actual tax matter ruling until after the legislature has a real case or controversy, as the lawyers say. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT concluded then that the legislature has to put the amendment in, the tax comes in and then the legislature starts litigating and gets to the core. MR. LORENSEN agreed as that is the way it has been done in a couple of decisions over the last decade. He recalled that there was some dispute in the early 1990s over the taxability of state- created funds and that ended up being litigated. Number 1026 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Lorensen to go back to the key point of taking what the legislature has the discretion to do and putting that discretion where the legislature cannot change it. Representative Croft asked if there are court cases that emphasize the control that the sovereign still retains over the distribution technique. Number 1045 MR. LORENSEN replied that although he cannot point to specific cases, the simple answer is yes. The IRS looks at whether or not the legislature has retained the ability to deal with whatever fund is at issue. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT acknowledged that in that sense the legislature is taking the very step with HJR 49 that puts the PF fund at the most tax risk. He remarked that a big [tax] factor is how much control the legislature has over the fund. Therefore, he surmised that by taking the fund out of legislative control the legislature steps right into one of those IRS defined categories. MR. LORENSEN stated that he believed that Representative Croft's assessment is correct. Number 1075 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to the time frame for litigation if a tax were imposed [on the PF fund] and the legislature appealed it. He reminded the committee that the discussion concerns hundreds of millions of dollars and if [litigation] carries over to another year, then the dollar amount doubles and the situation becomes even worse. He expressed concern that somewhere down the road if [the PF loses money], there would be no funds to pay tax [which might result in drawing upon the PF] corpus [to obtain funds]. MR. LORENSEN answered that, practically speaking, the committee is talking about a litigation sequence that probably would not be resolved in less than two years and could be longer than three. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN exclaimed that at a billion dollars a year that is... REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reminded Representative Green that "you never ask the question unless you know the answer." Number 1129 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to the consequence if the legislature is wrong. He asked if the legislature would be treated as a corporation and if so, what is the corporate tax rate? MR. LORENSEN replied that he believes that the corporate tax rate is 39 percent but, again, he does not claim to be a tax expert. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that the corporate tax rate varies. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that Mr. Lorensen has worked with the PF too. MR. LORENSEN explained that he has a private law practice in Juneau but he is also outside counsel to the PF under contract. Number 1210 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she knows why the sponsor has put HJR 49 before the committee and she knows that his beliefs are very deep seated. Furthermore, his district is probably very supportive and demanding of this issue. She remarked that her district has been labeled the most conservative in the state only because the percentage of registered Republicans in her district is more than in any other district. In regard to the September 14, 1999, vote, the 83 percent "no" vote did not mean absolutely "no, no way." She surmised that the vote really meant that the voters thought that getting into the earnings reserve was a "camel's nose under the fence," which she believes to be the case. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that her 35 years' experience with tax preparation and education has left her scared to do anything about the PF that would put it in any jeopardy. She said that the situation can be solved another way, and furthermore the situation that Representative Ogan is trying to fix can be resolved without doing HJR 49. She noted that she has been a proponent of doing nothing this year until the legislature works out something that the public will buy into, which she believes the legislature can do. However, she did not know what that "something" is nor does she think any legislator knows; still, the legislature needs to work on it. The legislature needs to come to a conclusion and determine how much money is needed and where it is going to come from. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed the committee that she had sent out a survey recently and those who have responded have proven that her understanding of the 83 percent vote is fairly correct. Although the answers on her survey range all over the place, there is a small percentage that says "leave the earnings alone and leave the PF dividend alone and don't do anything but just get out of there and don't touch anything." She emphasized that she does not want to discredit Representative Ogan for what he is doing because he honestly believes that HJR 49 is a solution. However, she does not believe that [HJR 49] is a solution because she believes it does pose a threat for which the legislature has no defense or answer. Number 1385 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG apologized for his earlier, but he feels very strongly about it. He noted that he had asked Representative Ogan before [if he wanted to watch the video] of the Callan & Associates presentation to the Finance Committee, which he offered to provide to Representative Ogan because he needs to understand [some of the problems]. Representative Rokeberg said that before "something" is put into the constitution Representative Ogan should make sure that was fixed first. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that personally he believes that the legislature needs to develop some type of endowment system so that the legislature does not get involved in an inflationary deposit that has to be piecemealed out as a direct appropriation. He commented that one reason the market crashed today was because the consumer price index (CPI) release was the worst in years. The CPI came out at 0.7 percent for the month of March [2000] and the core rate was 0.4 [percent]. Accordingly, the CPI figure was 8.4 percent adjusted non-core on an annualized basis and the market "tanked." He explained that those figures mean that the PF interest reserve and corpus go down at the same time that the legislature must withdraw a larger amount of money from the PF earnings reserve to inflation-proof the fund and place it in the corpus. He remarked that the legislature has been able to do this because the PF has been in an up-market condition. However, no plan can be made on that basis nor can [plans] be memorialized into the constitution that do not fit all scenarios. He reiterated that there is much disinformation [on this topic], and therefore people really need to know the truth. Number 1503 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he subscribed to the same theory. He noted his appreciation of Representative Rokeberg's explanation as to why he is so excited because any time a representative testifies at a committee or on the floor, no other legislator should demonstrate a critical or belittling demeanor. Representative Green hoped that Representative Ogan understood that although the majority of the committee is not in favor of HJR 49, by no means is Representative Ogan discredited, in fact, Representative Green champions the fact that Representative Ogan brought something forward because that is what the legislature needs, more ideas. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that he does not take things personally because he also gets excited sometimes. Furthermore, he noted his acceptance of criticism as a positive thing. Moreover, he said that he does not disagree with much of what he has heard. Although he does not claim to be a financial expert, he recommended that the legislature fix this system if it is broken. He recognized that the "fix" is going to result in very contentious debate because the legislature has lost the confidence of the people. Therefore, maybe someone else, such as another legislature should try to fix the problem. Perhaps, HJR 49 would be a good vehicle to fix the problem. Although the legislature needs to come up with a fix, he does not think people are going to trust the legislature until they know that the PF program is not going to go away, especially since the courts themselves have said that the PF program is at the whim of the legislature. Number 1667 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that there are two points to this issue. First, should it be constitutionalized at all. Second, if it is constitutionalized, what does the legislature want to put in the constitution. He explained that HJR 49 proposes to immortalize a five-year running average methodology into the constitution. He echoed Representative Rokeberg's point that the PF has been in on one of the biggest stock market rides in history. Now that the stock market has just hit a correction bump or may remain flat for a while the legislature would run a risk by setting in stone a five-year running average. He explained that when the stock market flattens, the PF will [continue to] pay for the 20 percent years with nothing in the bank from which to draw. He envisioned a scenario in which the PF Corporation comes to the legislature and says that the PF Corporation had a bad year with zero income, although the last four years have been fabulous. In such a scenario, the legislature owes a dividend based on a great four years plus one zero year, but there would be no dollars to make the dividend payments. Number 1812 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that if the stock market suffers a two-year flat run, then the PF will have blown the entire reserve. If there is a three-year flat run, depending on how much and what negative, then the PF goes broke. He acknowledged that the consequences of a flat stock market can be solved in a couple of ways. For instance, instead of using a five-year average the PF could use what it earns in the year, however that method has a high degree of volatility. He indicated that an endowment approach could be a possible solution, especially since most of the committee likes the stability that an endowment approach would bring. However, the idea of an endowment did not receive much discussion at all. Number 1872 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the committee was sure it wanted to constitutionalize the PF formula in view of the tax consequences of such action. He acknowledged that constitutionalization of the PF formula is advantageous when the stock market is riding high; however, is it the one that the legislature wants to set in stone? He noted that a five-year running average is normally figured by taking five years and dividing it into fifths and it comes out to about 20. He explained that half of the 20 goes to the dividend and then rules say that the Corporation shall calculate the amount to transfer for inflation proofing based on the United States CPI. [After hearing Representative Rokeberg's assessment of the current market,] Representative Croft envisioned that the current situation, the stock market figures and the CPI figures combined, is the worst possible scenario. He explained that the legislature by law, and now by constitution if HJR 49 passes, must deposit a large amount of money into the PF for inflation proofing. Furthermore, the legislature [would have] no money with which to pay for inflation proofing and would still have to pay a dividend based on four years back. If what happened this week [in the stock market] remains as is or happens again in the future, under this constitution, the PF really would be "train wrecked." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated that the dividend would be gone. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the whole reserve account would be gone. Number 1930 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the dividend is calculated at 50 percent of the earnings or half of what is in the earnings reserve, [although statute] does not specify that is what happens. She commented that inflation proofing does not get done [if there is not enough money to cover it]. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT quoted from statutes Sec. 37.13.140. Income. as follows: Income available for distribution equals 21 percent of the net income of the fund for the last five fiscal years, including the fiscal year just ended, but may not exceed net income of the fund... plus the balance... In other words, "the running five is used unless it is on the bottom, in which case it is just everything that remains. It is figured on what the PF made this year and what is in the bank. If it is more than that then that is all that is available." He quoted "dividends shall be 50 percent of the income available for distribution as defined above." Number 1999 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed and noted that the earnings reserve has shrunk if [the amount] was [not such that] the 21 percent could be done. She reiterated that [dividends are based on] half of what [is in the earnings reserve], which is the measure, and half [of that is] put into the dividend fund. Finally, what is left is used to inflation-proof. She remarked that any money after inflation proofing is either carried over to the next year or is used for PF management operations costs. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT reminded the committee that the merits of HJR 49 are under discussion. He recognized that Representative James was correct in her explanation that half of the earnings reserve goes to the dividend but the part that goes to inflation proofing does not talk about 50 percent of what is left or anything. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that inflation proofing has nothing to do with the 50 percent figure. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the CPI is spoken of in conjunction with inflation proofing. So he presented the following example: OK, we're down to the bottom of the barrel; we're taking half of the barrel but it is huge. I mean the inflation number is not related to the barrel anymore, it is related to an absolute. So you could say "give away half of some number and I'm paying you zero because I don't have any income this year." Take half of this small number and pay the dividends (you don't have anything to pay that) and take this huge inflation number out there and put that back in but, of course, back... Number 2110 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG acknowledged that [the money] goes from the earnings reserve to the corpus so it is zeroing out the earnings reserve. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that it zeroes out the earnings. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that inflation proofing is worse than the other because the PF can never catch up. He recognized that after dividends are paid out of the PF the amount available for spending has gone down and inflation proofing has to be added though it can be put off limits. He added that the PF ends up at basically net zero so the PF takes the next year's cash flow infusion and does it all over again. Therefore, the dividend is paid after the calculation and everything else keeps going into the corpus and thus the PF is always broke. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that some people call it a convolution. Number 2155 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the committee has been discussing the $400 or $800 million gap and [on top of that the legislature could] owe the PF $1 billion for inflation proofing. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed with Representative Croft. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked that the legislature does not have a $400 million problem but rather a $1.4 million problems because by law and by constitution the legislature has to pay whatever for $8 billion in the PF. Furthermore, the legislature's $400 million gap would remain. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is the point he was making earlier. If the market is going up, the PF is earning more and the dividend goes up. He explained that the PF pays the dividend and then whatever residual values are left [pay for] inflation proofing for that year. However, if inflation goes down, the legislature has to go back to ten years before and fill the rest of it back into the corpus. Therefore, the PF is back to zero again; that is really what is broken. Number 2241 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reminded the committee that with all of that there is also the possibility of getting hit with income tax, which would leave the legislature with only 55 or 60 percent of the PF. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that the IRS imposed income tax [would be on] what the earnings were, just like a corporation, then they double tax it to the dividend. Number 2267 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that the state would not hemorrhage on income tax because of Section 3 of HJR 49. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he does not know that what Representative Ogan says is true, however this formula only works well in a great stock market with low inflation, which does not happen very often. Alaska has been very lucky over the last 15 years. He noted that people could say "We'll always have a great stock market and low inflation" but if either one of those two things stop happening problems surface under this [PF] formula. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed and said that such knowledge was not understood by very many legislators let alone the people in the street who voted. Number 2338 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI surmised that the point and purpose of the sponsor, in bringing HJR 49 forward, is to enshrine it to protect the dividend. If the legislature is going to protect the dividend through HJR 49, the public needs to understand that putting this language in the constitution, which says that the legislature will "guarantee the permanent fund dividend...," may in fact mean that the legislature will continue to pay out a dividend. However, that pay out may occur at the expense of all of the state's savings and at the expense of the corpus of the fund. She does not believe that is what the public really wants nor does she believe that the legislature can guarantee the dividend. Number 2449 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed that the legislature cannot guarantee a PF dividend under any plan that may be presented. The only way the legislature could guarantee a PF dividend is, as long as there is a PF, by continuing to contribute to it. TAPE 00-62, SIDE A REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG added that it is absolutely dishonest [to provide a guarantee]. Number 0058 SHELTON GREEN, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State Legislature, noted that if HJR 49 passes, the legislature will still control who receives the dividend, which is important to the question of imminent control that the legislature will have on the money [the dividend program]. He reminded the committee that the Morrison & Foerster report speaks about a gray area referred to as "beyond the reach of government." He pointed out that the legislature would still control, in statute, who would receive a dividend. The legislature is constitutionalizing only statutes concerning the dividend and inflation proofing rather than all of the earnings. The money that is left over every year is still going to be in statute. MR. GREEN referred to Representative Murkowski's comment regarding what the legislature is trying to get to in promising a dividend. He explained that the legislature [, beyond promising a dividend,] is also trying to promise people the right to vote on what would happen with their dividend. Furthermore, the legislature is trying to reach a place to allow the public to vote before the legislature spends money that would have gone to dividends. He commented that no one is opposed to using parts of the earnings reserve or unrefuted income for state spending [rather the interest is in accessing the money] in a gracious manner. Number 0160 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to how the legislature maintains control for that which is covered by this constitutional amendment. MR. GREEN replied that the money which is left over every year after paying dividends and inflation proofing is not constitutionalized. He reiterated that the legislature would still maintain control. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that no one is talking about the left over money rather this committee is talking about the big chunk [of money] which does go into the constitution; the concern is that the big chunk will be taxed. MR. GREEN commented that he understood what Representative Green was saying. He restated Mr. Lorensen's earlier testimony that the PF money is all out of the reach of the government and there is a litmus test that must be passed before the PF loses its current status. Number 0230 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that the PF has become a political issue in this state already and with the disinformation, misunderstanding and ignorance of people surrounding this issue he would hope that this gets cleared up before the next election. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned that someone had said "use the rest" and that may be true but HJR 49, page 2, lines 1 and 2, says "All income from the permanent fund shall be distributed as provided for by statutory formula that existed on January 1, 2000 (AS 37.13.140 and 37.13.145)." He indicated that [AS 37.13].140 and [AS 37.13].145 talk about dividend and inflation proofing. Number 0373 MR. GREEN specified that [those statutes] give the legislature the means to calculate and that would be in the constitution. Although Mr. Green sympathized with Representative Rokeberg's concerns, he pointed out that the actual money (or numbers) available for distribution is still at the will of the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if all income from the PF shall be distributed as provided. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired if that was not the current plan. Number 0420 MR. GREEN replied that there was a piece of legislation in 1997, HJR 18, which [proposed] to take all the earnings and put them into the constitution. He added that the sponsor had spoken with the drafters in Legislative Legal in an effort to not repeat that [proposed] legislation because it was the purpose of the sponsor to leave out [of the constitution] money that was left over every year. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT recognized that Mr. Green had accomplished the desired result. Number 0454 CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated HJR 49 would be held over. CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease that lasted about one minute and then the meeting was called back to order. SB 177-INSURANCE TRADE PRACTICES Number 0493 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(L&C), "An Act relating to insurance trade practices; and providing for an effective date." SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, Alaska State Legislature, said that SB 177 brings Alaska into alignment with the majority of states as far as allowing their Division of Insurance to take enforcement action to protect the individual consumer regarding violations of the Unfair Claims Practices Act. He noted that SB 177 is supported completely by the Division of Insurance and makes a very important change to maintain the status quo for the issue of proximate cause to protect homeowners all over Alaska. He explained that the purpose is to make sure that homeowners' insurance protection policies pay for damages [as expected by the homeowner and for which he/she had] paid. He commented that SB 177 is a good, positive, and balanced pro-consumer piece of legislation. He informed the committee that SB 177 has been amended several times through the process to make it clear that the bill does not create a private cause of action and that the enforcement of the Unfair Claims Practices Act is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Division of Insurance. He indicated that SB 177 is long overdue. Number 0560 CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that he will hold SB 177 over until tomorrow. SENATOR DONLEY informed the committee that he supports the House Labor & Commerce version of SB 177. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if that included the amendment that Representative Rokeberg has. SENATOR DONLEY clarified that his support does not include the new amendment presented by Representative Rokeberg. However, Representative Rokeberg's amendment has a piece to which Senator Donley and the division are amenable. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to what piece they are referring to. CHAIRMAN KOTT answered that the committee will find out tomorrow and indicated that HCS CSSB 177(L&C) will be held over. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|