05/08/2004 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 8, 2004
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 217(JUD)
"An Act relating to genetic privacy."
- MOVED CSSB 217(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 364(HES)(efd fld)
"An Act relating to liability for expenses of placement in
certain mental health facilities; and relating to the mental
health treatment assistance program."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 364(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 224(STA)
"An Act relating to a minor operating a vehicle after consuming
alcohol, to a minor refusing to submit to chemical tests, and to
driving during the 24 hours after being cited for one of those
offenses; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 224(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(CRA)
"An Act relating to access to library records, including access
to the library records of a child by a parent or guardian."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 306(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the practice of naturopathic medicine; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 217
SHORT TITLE: GENETIC PRIVACY
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) OLSON
05/09/03 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/09/03 (S) HES, JUD
01/28/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/04 (S) Moved CSSB 217 (HES) Out of Committee
01/28/04 (S) MINUTE(HES)
01/30/04 (S) HES RPT CS 1DP 1NR 2AM NEW TITLE
01/30/04 (S) DP: DYSON; NR: GUESS;
01/30/04 (S) AM: GREEN, WILKEN
02/06/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/06/04 (S) Heard & Held
02/06/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/18/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/18/04 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/25/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/04 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/03/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/04 (S) Moved CSSB 217(JUD) Out of Committee
03/03/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/04/04 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 3NR NEW TITLE
03/04/04 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH JUD REPORT
03/04/04 (S) NR: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT, OGAN;
03/04/04 (S) DP: FRENCH
05/03/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/03/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 217(JUD)
05/04/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/04/04 (H) JUD
05/05/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/06/04 (H) JUD AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/06/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/07/04 (H) JUD AT 6:15 PM CAPITOL 120
05/07/04 (H) Heard & Held
05/07/04 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/08/04 (H) JUD AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 364
SHORT TITLE: LIMIT STATE AID FOR MENTAL HEALTH CARE
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/08/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/04 (S) HES, FIN
03/19/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/19/04 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/22/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/04 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/24/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/24/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/24/04 (S) MINUTE(HES)
04/02/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/04 (S) Moved CSSB 364(HES) Out of Committee
04/02/04 (S) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/04 (S) HES RPT CS 3DP 1DNP 1AM SAME TITLE
04/05/04 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH HES REPORT
04/05/04 (S) DP: DYSON, GREEN, WILKEN; DNP: DAVIS;
04/05/04 (S) AM: GUESS
04/23/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/23/04 (S) Bill Hearing Postponed
04/26/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/26/04 (S) Heard & Held
04/26/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/27/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/27/04 (S) Moved CSSB 364(HES) Out of Committee
04/27/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/27/04 (S) FIN RPT CS(HES) 4DP 1DNP 1NR 1AM
04/27/04 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, BUNDE, STEVENS B;
04/27/04 (S) DNP: HOFFMAN; NR: DYSON; AM: OLSON
04/27/04 (S) HES LETTER OF INTENT WITH FIN REPORT
05/06/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/06/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 364(HES)(EFD FLD)
05/07/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/07/04 (H) JUD, FIN
05/07/04 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/07/04 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/08/04 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/08/04 (H) -- Meeting Postponed --
05/08/04 (H) JUD AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 224
SHORT TITLE: LOWER DWI FOR MINORS TO .02
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) COWDERY
05/14/03 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/14/03 (S) TRA, STA
05/17/03 (S) TRA AT 11:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
05/17/03 (S) Heard & Held
05/17/03 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/24/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/24/04 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/24/04 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/25/04 (S) TRA RPT 2DP 2NR
02/25/04 (S) DP: COWDERY, WAGONER; NR: THERRIAULT,
02/25/04 (S) LINCOLN
02/25/04 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
03/23/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/23/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/13/04 (S) STA AT 0:00 AM BELTZ 211
04/13/04 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/20/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/20/04 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/27/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/27/04 (S) Moved CSSB 224(STA) Out of Committee
04/27/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/04 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/28/04 (S) DP: STEVENS G, COWDERY;
04/28/04 (S) NR: STEDMAN, GUESS
05/04/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
05/04/04 (S) Moved CSSB 224(STA) Out of Committee
05/04/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
05/04/04 (S) FIN RPT CS(STA) 5DP 2NR
05/04/04 (S) DP: WILKEN, DYSON, HOFFMAN, BUNDE,
05/04/04 (S) STEVENS B; NR: GREEN, OLSON
05/06/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/06/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 224(STA)
05/07/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/07/04 (H) JUD, FIN
05/08/04 (H) JUD AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN L. GEORGE, Lobbyist
for American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of SB 217.
DAVID GRAY, Staff
to Senator Donny Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of SB 217 on behalf of the sponsor, Senator Olson.
BILL HOGAN, Director
Central Office
Division of Behavioral Health (DBH)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the administration, responded
to questions during discussion of SB 364.
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff
to Senator John Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 244 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Cowdery.
CINDY CASHEN, Executive Director
Juneau Chapter
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of SB 224 by
responding to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-81, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Representatives
McGuire, Ogg, Samuels, and Gara were present at the call to
order. Representatives Holm and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SB 217 - GENETIC PRIVACY
Number 0050
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 217(JUD), "An Act relating to genetic
privacy."
Number 0055
JOHN L. GEORGE, Lobbyist for American Council of Life Insurers
(ACLI), said that the life insurance industry believes that
genetic information ought to be protected. However, should
genetic information be protected more than health information?
The ACLI is of the opinion that it should not; instead, there
ought to be really strong safeguards on both types of
information, but not for one more than the other. By the very
nature of disability and long-term-care insurance, insurers have
personal and confidential relationships with policyholders. He
surmised that most members have probably applied for a life
insurance policy and so know that questions are asked regarding
family history of blood disease and cancer; that information is
genetic information, but the bill does not precluded insurers
from asking those types of questions.
MR. GEORGE noted that additionally, if one is applying for a
large policy, an insurer may require a physical examination
including blood tests; this allows insurers to categorize people
with similar risks and charge an "appropriate" premium. He
characterized the bill's definition of genetic information as
fairly broad, so broad that [information about] any disease
might be considered genetic [information]. The ACLI, however,
believes that there is a crossover between "normal" health
information and genetic information. Insurance companies like
things that are pretty standard and pretty inexpensive, and so
will not spend $500 to do a [genetic] test; instead, the tests
required by insurers are fairly simple and are used for
underwriting purposes.
MR. GEORGE said that the ACLI is strongly committed to the
principle that individuals have a legitimate interest in the
proper collection and handling of their personal information and
that insurers have a responsibility to keep that information
confidential and secure. He offered his belief, however, that
insurers must be able to obtain, use responsibly, and share
information; these functions are essential in order for insurers
to write and service insurance policies.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out, though, that if the bill only
addresses DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), then the bill won't
interfere with anything the insurance industry wants to do
except to the extent that it wants to use somebody's DNA for
some reason.
Number 0377
MR. GEORGE acknowledged that point, but suggested that the
definition of what constitutes DNA information needs work. For
example, if one were to find out through a DNA test that he/she
has high blood pressure, the insurance company ought to be able
to get that information. He mentioned that there are a number
of tests that could fall under "that" classification, and
indicated that the insurance industry is not interested in doing
extensive DNA testing and analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out, however, that the bill only
makes DNA information private and specifies that a DNA analysis
doesn't include regular, more broadly used diagnostic testing.
MR. GEORGE suggested that his client's concerns could be
addressed by changing the definition of DNA. As an alternative,
perhaps written authorization from the individual to obtain and
share genetic information could be required of the insurance
industry. But if insurers are unable to share information or
keep underwriting information intact, they would be forced to
cancel policies. Because the bill specifies that a person can
retract permission to use his/her genetic information, if a
person elects to do that, an insurance company would be forced
to redact that person's file. "Once we get the information, we
need to be able to hold on to it and use it for ... limited
purposes; failing that, we would have to cancel the policy
because we can't appropriately service the policy," he added.
MR. GEORGE assured the committee that the Division of Insurance
has regulations governing the protection of health information,
as does the federal government via Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations. There really is
adequate protection, he opined. He then turned attention to a
proposed amendment, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2 line 30. Add a new section to chapter 18.13 as
follows:
The requirements of this chapter do not apply to
a "covered entity" as defined by and subject to
the federal health insurance portability and
accountability privacy rules (45 CFR Parts 160
and 164) or to licensees subject to regulations
adopted under AS 21.36.162.
MR. GEORGE said this proposed amendment offers an exemption to
those entities that are subject to HIPAA regulations and
Division of Insurance regulations as they apply to licensees.
He suggested that a consent form pertaining to all information
could be created by the Division of Insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked whether there is anything in the bill
that stops an insurer from entering into a contractual
relationship with a person.
Number 0808
MR. GEORGE said yes. Before a policy is written, the person
provides certain information to the insurer, and as long as the
insurer has that information and can use it as described in the
contract, everything is fine. But since the bill allows the
person to retract his/her permission to use the information, the
insurer would have to redact the file and this could affect
whether the insurer is able to reinsure the person, sell the
company, or be able to provide full information for examination
by the Division of Insurance. "As long as you don't ever
withdraw your permission once you've given it, that's not a
problem; it's when you pull that back that it creates the
[difficulty]," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG pointed out, however, that the contract could
simply stipulate that withdrawal of permission to use/share DNA
information will result in the policy being canceled; that
stipulation could be part of the contractual relationship. He
indicated that he did not see where the bill causes a problem
with regard to entering into contractual agreements.
MR. GEORGE acknowledged that such a stipulation could be part of
a contract, but questioned whether canceling policies is really
in the public's best interest.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised that they might not be able to
agree on this issue. He asked whether DNA is currently being
used without its owner's consent.
MR. GEORGE said that since the ACLI considers DNA information to
be health information, consent is still required. The bill,
however, creates a private property right.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked how the insurance industry currently uses
DNA information.
MR. GEORGE offered that the results of certain blood tests could
be considered genetic information.
CHAIR McGUIRE said she is concerned that if genetic information
reveals whether a person has traits or tendencies towards
cancer, for example, or other hereditary diseases, then the
insurance industry will use that information to deny a person
health or life insurance.
Number 1138
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM offered his understanding that there are a
number of illnesses and disabilities that can be seen via the
genetic code. It is a difficult fence to straddle, he remarked,
because the legislature wants to be able to protect people's
rights without interfering with an insurance company's ability
to write policies. He echoed some of Representative Ogg's
comments regarding changes in contractual agreements, and
predicted that the legislature will want to err on the side of
people's personal freedoms. He said SB 217 appears to be the
right kind of bill at this point in time, though things could
change as new scientific advancements are made. He suggested
that the insurance industry accept the changes proposed via SB
217, see if any problems arise and, if they do, then come back
to the legislature and request assistance. It's to no one's
benefit to drive the insurance industry away, he concluded.
MR. GEORGE noted that insurance companies make money by writing
insurance, not by denying insurance. There is a proper rate for
everyone, he remarked, and suggested that the question comes
down to whether there ought to be cross subsidy - those that
live a long time pay a little more so that those that won't live
a long time pay a little less. He noted that statistically,
women live longer than men, and Caucasians live longer than
African Americans. Ought there to be a different rate for those
that statistically live longer? The state of Massachusetts
decided that there shouldn't be a difference based on sex, and
the insurance industry decided, as a policy decision, that there
shouldn't be a difference based on race. Therefore, some groups
do subsidize others.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after thanking Mr. George for coming and
remarking that he has provided the committee with food for
thought, suggested that the committee consider the issue of
possible amendments.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:25 p.m. to 1:26 p.m.
Number 1433
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 1, a
handwritten amendment with corrections that read [original
punctuation provided]:
page 2 line 10. After "section" insert:
"Any written consent must clearly inform the person of
the nature of the genetic testing requested and the
right of privacy that is being waived."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that Amendment 1 be treated
as a conceptual amendment.
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she likes [Conceptual] Amendment 1.
Number 1480
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected. He expressed concern that
amending the bill might cause it to fail due to a lack of time.
Number 1483
DAVID GRAY, Staff to Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, on behalf of Senator Olson, said that if
the committee wishes to amend SB 217, it has the right to do so,
and that doing so will give the House a bit of ownership in the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that after reading the section that
[Conceptual] Amendment 1 proposes to change, he believes his
concern is addressed by the fact that a separate form will be
required.
Number 1551
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew [Conceptual] Amendment 1.
MR. GEORGE expressed a preference for just having one consent
form, created by the Division of Insurance, that encompasses all
information.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that page 2, lines 10-12, read in part, "The
Department of Health and Social Services may by regulation adopt
a uniform informed and written consent form to assist persons in
meeting the requirements of this section".
Number 1597
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report CSSB 217(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 217(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 1627
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report the Senate Judiciary
Standing Committee's letter of intent out of committee along
with the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a preference for including an
intent section in the bill itself, rather than just having a
letter of intent.
Number 1649
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
reporting the letter of intent along with the bill. There being
none, the letter of intent was also reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
[CSSB 217(JUD) was reported from committee.]
Number 1661
CHAIR McGUIRE recessed the meeting at 1:32 p.m. to a call of the
chair.
CHAIR McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee back
to order at 10:30 p.m. Representatives McGuire, Anderson,
Samuels, Ogg, and Gruenberg were present at the call back to
order. Representative Gara arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
SB 364 - LIMIT STATE AID FOR MENTAL HEALTH CARE
[Contains mention that the proposed House committee substitute
mirrors the latest House version of the bill, CSHB 535(JUD),
which was reported from committee on 5/6/04.]
Number 1670
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 364(HES)(efd fld), "An Act relating to
liability for expenses of placement in certain mental health
facilities; and relating to the mental health treatment
assistance program."
CHAIR McGUIRE stated that public testimony on SB 364 is closed,
and mentioned that the proposed House committee substitute (HCS)
in members' packets mirrors the latest House version of the
bill, [CSHB 535(JUD), which was reported from committee on
5/6/04].
Number 1708
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to adopt the proposed HCS for SB
364, Version 23-GS2080\I, Mischel, 5/7/04, as the work draft.
There being no objection, Version I was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG directed attention to page 1, line 11, and
noted that it says that the patient's parent will pay if the
patient is under 18 years of age. He asked how that would apply
when the patient is an emancipated minor. Would the patient's
parent still be obligated to pay?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that that language is part
of current law. He offered his belief that the intent of the
language is that it apply only to unemancipated minors; once a
minor is emancipated, then the parent, as a matter of law, is no
longer responsible. He characterized the language being used as
standard language that automatically doesn't apply to
emancipated minors.
Number 1824
BILL HOGAN, Director, Central Office, Division of Behavioral
Health (DBH), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
concurred that once a minor is emancipated, he/she is considered
an adult. He relayed that the number of children being served
by this program is less than 3 percent of the total being
served; so in a year where the average number of individuals
being served by this program is about 250, only 6 or 7 of them
are children.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG pointed out, however, that the language does
not specify that it pertains only to unemancipated minors.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested changing the language such
that it does specify an unemancipated minor.
Number 1873
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to
change page 1, lines 6-7 and 18, such that "under 18 years of
age" is replaced with "an unemancipated minor". There being no
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1906
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed HCS for SB
364, Version 23-GS2080\I, Mischel, 5/7/04, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note.
Number 1919
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there is language on page 2,
line 4, similar to that which was changed via Amendment 1.
CHAIR McGUIRE [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 2, to change
page 2 [lines 4-5] such that "under 18 years of age" is replaced
with "an unemancipated minor".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested asking the drafter to make a
similar change wherever the phrase, "under 18 years of age"
occurs.
Number 1931
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
MR. HOGAN noted that that phrase is also used on page 4 [line
12].
CHAIR McGUIRE referred to that [possible change] as Amendment 3,
and prompted Representative Gruenberg.
Number 1969
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "Okay; 'under 18 years of age'
should be 'an unemancipated minor'". [Although no formal motion
was made, Amendment 3 was treated as moved and adopted] He then
asked whether the phrase "under 18 years of age" is used
elsewhere in AS 47.31.
MR. HOGAN offered his belief that it is.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Hogan to provide him with a
list of instances where it is used, for the purpose of possibly
making conforming amendments at another time.
Number 1996
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON again made the motion to report the
proposed HCS for SB 364, Version 23-GS2080\I, Mischel, 5/7/04,
as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS
CSSB 364(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
Number 2021
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to report the Senate Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee's letter of intent out of
committee along with the bill. There being no objection, the
letter of intent was also reported from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
[HCS CSSB 364(JUD) was reported from committee.]
SB 224 - LOWER DWI FOR MINORS TO .02
Number 2030
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 224(STA), "An Act relating to a minor
operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol, to a minor refusing
to submit to chemical tests, and to driving during the 24 hours
after being cited for one of those offenses; and providing for
an effective date."
Number 2044
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff to Senator John Cowdery, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, presented SB 244 on behalf of Senator
Cowdery. He said the purpose of SB 244 is to provide stiffer
penalties to those who, while under the legal drinking age,
consume alcohol and drive. Currently, such a person would be
charged with minor consuming and/or minor operating a vehicle
after consuming, both of which result in an infraction. The
bill proposes zero tolerance for minors who consume and drive,
and imposes a series of mandatory fines that escalate for repeat
violations: $500 for a first offense, $1,000 for a second
offense, and $1,500 for additional offenses. In addition,
mandatory community work service (CWS) will also be imposed:
20-40 hours for a first offense, 40-60 hours for a second
offense, and 60-80 hours for additional offenses. He noted that
the behavior would still be an infraction under the current
version of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG questioned whether people under 18 years of
age would be treated differently than people who are 18 to 20
years of age, and, if so, why.
Number 2147
CINDY CASHEN, Executive Director, Juneau Chapter, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving (MADD), said that anyone under the age of
21 who is caught drinking alcohol is charged with minor
consuming, though a person who is between the ages of 18 and 20
can represent himself/herself in court.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG offered his belief that a minor is legally
defined as being under the age of 18.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked Representative Ogg if he is
suggesting that they replace the term "minor" with language that
would reflect that what is meant is someone under the age of 21.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG remarked that if that is the goal of the
bill, then the language should be clarified.
MR. SCHMITZ said such a change would be fine. He posited,
however, that with regard to alcohol consumption, "minor" is
probably the term of art that the drafters use to refer to
anyone under the age of 21 who is consuming alcohol illegally.
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised, then, that the drafters have indicated
that the legal term "minor" means something different when used
with regard to alcohol.
MS. CASHEN concurred.
MR. SCHMITZ said he would be willing to consult with the
drafters on this issue before the bill is heard in the House
Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that statistics provided in members'
packets indicate that 14 percent of all alcohol-related
fatalities are caused by drivers between the ages of 15 and 20.
He questioned how having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of
.02 fits within those statistics.
MR. SCHMITZ suggested that adoption of the bill will provide an
incentive to those under the age of 21 to not drive if they have
been consuming. He likened creating this different standard to
creating different standards for behavior around school zones
and work zones.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that there must be a nexus between minor
consuming and driving. She read a portion of AS 28.35.280 as
currently written:
Minor operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol.
(a) A person who is at least 14 years of age but
not yet 21 years of age commits the offense of minor
operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol if the
person operates or drives a motor vehicle ...
(b) ... A person who is 18 years of age or older
shall be released on the person's own recognizance. A
person who is under the age of 18 shall be released to
a parent, guardian, or legal custodian.
TAPE 04-81, SIDE B
2393
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to Section 3, subsection
(b), which proposes to change AS 28.35.290 and which read in
part:
Operating a motor vehicle during the 24 hours after
being cited for minor operating a vehicle after
consuming alcohol or for minor's refusal to submit to
a chemical test is, an infraction and if the minor
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that this language
presumes that such a person would no longer have a driver's
license.
CHAIR McGUIRE read the language currently in AS 28.35.290(a):
(a) A person who has been cited for minor
operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol under AS
28.35.280 or for refusal to submit to a chemical test
of breath under AS 28.35.285 may not operate a motor
vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft during the 24 hours
following issuance of the citation.
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that this language doesn't mean that a
person has had his/her driver's license suspended; instead it
just means that a person may not drive for 24 hours after being
issued a citation for minor consuming.
MR. SCHMITZ concurred, and reiterated that the goal of the bill
is to provide those under the age of 21 with an extra incentive
to not drink and drive.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to Section 4, which
proposes to repeal Sections 14-16 and 23 of Chapter 143, SLA
1996. He expressed a desire to know what language is actually
being repealed by Section 4.
MR. SCHMITZ relayed that he would be willing to work with
Representative Gruenberg on that issue.
MS. CASHEN mentioned that the bill has been studied by Anne
Carpeneti - Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-
Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL) - and others
in the administration, and the bill has "met their seal of
approval."
Number 2249
REPRESENTATIVE GARA and GRUENBERG moved to report CSSB 224(STA)
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB
224(STA) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2237
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|