Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/19/1993 01:00 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE March 19, 1993 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter, Chairman Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair Representative Pete Kott Representative Gail Phillips Representative Joe Green Representative Cliff Davidson (via teleconference from Kodiak) Representative Jim Nordlund COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 113 "An Act regulating the solicitation of contributions by charitable organizations and paid solicitors and the solicitation of sales by telephonic means; and amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 79 and 82." CSHB 113 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION HB 137 "An Act authorizing special medical parole for terminally ill prisoners." CSHB 137 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION HB 67 "An Act relating to eligibility for and payments of public assistance; and providing for an effective date." CSHB 67 (JUD) PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION HB 136 "An Act relating to the offenses of driving while intoxicated and refusal to submit to a breath test; and providing for an effective date." HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION HB 138 "An Act relating to limitations on a drivers' license; imposing a limited license fee; and providing for an effective date." INCORPORATED INTO HB 136 WITNESS REGISTER GAYLE HORETSKI Committee Counsel House Judiciary Committee Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 120 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-6841 Position Statement: Outlined changes in CSHB 113 (JUD) and CSHB 137 (JUD) JUDY MATHIS, Legislative Aide to Representative Ron Larson Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 502 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-3878 Position Statement: Answered questions related to HB 113 JIM FORBES Assistant Attorney General Department of Law 1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: 269-5100 Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 113 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 116 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-2647 Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 137 and HB 136 DANA LATOUR Special Assistant to the Commissioner Department of Corrections P. O. Box 112000 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone: 465-3376 Position Statement: Provided information related to HB 137 RICH COLLUM Director Parole Board P. O. Box 112000 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone: 465-3384 Position Statement: Provided information and answered questions related to HB 137 JAN HANSEN Director Division of Public Assistance Department of Health and Social Services P. O. Box 110640 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone: 465-3347 Position Statement: Provided information and answered questions related to HB 137 and HB 67 JUANITA HENSLEY Chief, Driver Services Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Public Safety P. O. Box 20020 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Phone: 465-4335 Position Statement: Discussed HB 136 MIKE FORD Attorney Legislative Affairs Agency Division of Legal Services 130 Seward Street, Suite 404 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 465-2450 Position Statement: Discussed HB 136 MARGOT KNUTH Assistant Attorney General Department of Law Criminal Division P. O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Phone: 465-3428 Position Statement: Discussed HB 136 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 113 SHORT TITLE: CHARITABLE & TELEPHONIC SOLICITING/SALES BILL VERSION: CSHB 113(FIN) SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LARSON TITLE: "An Act regulating the solicitation of contributions by charitable organizations and paid solicitors and the solicitation of sales by telephonic means; and amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 79 and 82." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/01/93 199 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/01/93 199 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE 02/10/93 290 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED, FOLLOWING L&C 03/04/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/04/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 03/05/93 542 (H) L&C RPT 5DP 03/05/93 542 (H) DP: PORTER,SITTON,MULDER,GREEN, HUDSON 03/05/93 542 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW) 3/5/93 03/15/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 03/15/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 137 SHORT TITLE: PAROLE OF TERMINALLY ILL PRISONERS BILL VERSION: CSHB 137(JUD) SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER TITLE: "An Act authorizing special medical parole for terminally ill prisoners." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/05/93 238 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/05/93 238 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 02/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/01/93 480 (H) HES RPT 6DP 1NR 03/01/93 480 (H) DP: VEZEY, BUNDE, TOOHEY, OLBERG 03/01/93 480 (H) DP: B.DAVIS, BRICE 03/01/93 480 (H) NR: NICHOLIA 03/01/93 480 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (CORR) 3/1/93 03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 67 SHORT TITLE: ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BILL VERSION: SCS CSHB 67(FIN)(EFD FLD) SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR TITLE: "An Act relating to eligibility for and payments of public assistance." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/15/93 86 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/15/93 86 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SS, JUDICIARY,FINANCE 01/15/93 86 (H) -6 FNS (6-DHSS) 1/15/93 01/15/93 86 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 02/10/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/10/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/22/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/22/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/02/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/05/93 541 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 3DP 3DNP 3NR 03/05/93 542 (H) DP: VEZEY, BUNDE, OLBERG 03/05/93 542 (H) DNP: B.DAVIS, BRICE, NICHOLIA 03/05/93 542 (H) NR: KOTT, G.DAVIS, TOOHEY 03/05/93 542 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (HES) 3/5/93 03/05/93 542 (H) -4 PREVIOUS FNS(DHSS) 1/15/93 03/15/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 03/15/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 136 SHORT TITLE: DRUNK DRIVING AND BREATH TEST OFFENSES BILL VERSION: CSHB 136(FIN) SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER TITLE: "An Act relating to revocation of and limitations on a driver's license to the offenses of driving while intoxicated and refusal to submit to a breath test; imposing a limited license fee; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 32(b); and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/05/93 238 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/05/93 238 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 02/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/02/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/05/93 543 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NEW TITLE 3DP 6NR 03/05/93 543 (H) DP: B.DAVIS, NICHOLIA, BRICE 03/05/93 543 (H) NR: KOTT, VEZEY, G.DAVIS, BUNDE, 03/05/93 543 (H) NR: OLBERG, TOOHEY 03/05/93 543 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (CORR) 3/5/93 03/05/93 543 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (DPS, LAW) 3/5/93 03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 138 SHORT TITLE: LIMITED DRIVERS' LICENSES BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER,Ulmer,Carney TITLE: "An Act relating to limitations on a drivers' license; imposing a limited license fee; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/08/93 253 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/08/93 254 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/04/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/04/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/05/93 543 (H) STA RPT 5DP 03/05/93 543 (H) DP: KOTT, B.DAVIS, OLBERG, VEZEY, G.DAVIS 03/05/93 544 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 3/5/93 03/05/93 544 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY 03/19/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-37, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to order at 1:12 p.m., on March 19, 1993. A quorum was present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would address HB 113 first. HB 113: CHARITABLE & TELEPHONIC SOLICITING/SALES Number 055 GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, outlined changes that appeared in a draft committee substitute for HB 113 (CSHB 113 (JUD)), dated March 18, 1993. The first change was located on page 2, line 19. She stated that the phrase "solicit payment for the purchase" had been added. She commented that this language explained what a telephonic seller could and could not do regarding a written contract. Number 125 MS. HORETSKI noted that the criminal penalties section of HB 113 had been clarified, at the recommendation of the Department of Law (DOL). She called members' attention to page 3, lines 23-30 of CSHB 113 (JUD). She said that the criminal penalties' section was a two-tiered system. A person would be guilty of a class C felony if he or she violated the law by trying to sell without having the written contract for soliciting payment. If other provisions of HB 113 were violated, however, a person would be charged with a class A misdemeanor. MS. HORETSKI stated that the next change appeared on page 4, lines 6-8. She said that persons registered with the United States Securities Commission, when acting within the scope of their license, had been added to the list of exemptions in HB 113. She said that this change had been made because the securities industry was already heavily regulated under federal law. Number 140 MS. HORETSKI noted that a change had been made regarding the length of time records had to be kept. In earlier versions of HB 113, she said, records were required to be kept for three years. That period had now been extended to five years, she stated. She called members' attention to page 9, line 4, and page 11, line 3, where that particular change was contained. MS. HORETSKI cited new language in the criminal penalties provision of the charitable organization section of CSHB 113 (JUD). She said that the new language appeared on page 10, lines 7-9, and was clarifying language suggested by the DOL. Number 165 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked why embalmers and funeral home directors were exempted from the provisions of HB 113. Number 170 JUDY MATHIS, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE RON LARSON, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 113, replied that those particular professions were already regulated by another agency. She noted that Assistant Attorney General Jim Forbes could more thoroughly answer Representative Phillips' question. Number 176 JIM FORBES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, spoke via telephone from Anchorage. He commented that embalmers and funeral home directors were already specifically covered by the Consumer Protection Act. He said that including them in HB 113 would be duplicative. He noted that they could still solicit business over the telephone without registering with the DOL. Number 195 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Forbes to clarify his remarks. Number 202 MR. FORBES responded that by being exempt from HB 113's provisions, the only thing that funeral home directors and embalmers were permitted to do was solicit business by telephonic means, without registering with the DOL. If the exemption was eliminated, he noted, they would merely have to register with the DOL before soliciting business by telephonic means. Number 234 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the exemption for people registered with the United States Securities Commission applied to stockbrokers. Number 245 MR. FORBES believed that the exemption applied to stockbrokers. He commented that people in the securities' business solicited two types of business over the telephone: the sale of securities, and the sale of stockbroker services. He said that the bill had been recently amended to cover both of these types of sales, as earlier versions of HB 113 had merely covered the sale of securities. He commented that the securities industry was already very heavily regulated. Number 274 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated that HB 113 would help to deal with the problem of fraudulent use of telemarketing. Number 284 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 113 (JUD). There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 290 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 113 (JUD) out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 309 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the next item of business before the committee was HB 137. HB 137: PAROLE OF TERMINALLY ILL PRISONERS Number 315 MS. HORETSKI called members' attention to a draft committee substitute for the bill, dated March 19, 1993 (CSHB 137 (JUD)). Number 326 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 137, said that the bill was an outgrowth of the Alaska Sentencing Commission's recommendations. He commented that within the criminal justice system, there was always a trade-off between protecting the community and the cost that society was willing to pay. He was of the opinion that HB 137 would diminish cost, while at the same time not pose a threat to the safety of the community. Number 346 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that HB 137 would give the Parole Board the ability to give special medical parole to terminally ill prisoners. He did not envision that this special medical parole would be used often, nor would it be used if a prisoner was thought to be a threat to society. He noted that the intention of the bill was to give the Parole Board some discretion. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that giving a terminally ill prisoner special medical parole would result in the financial obligation of that prisoner's medical care being transferred from the Department of Corrections (DOC) to Medicaid or Medicare. He cited one prisoner who had already cost the state thousands of dollars in medical costs. He said that, in the long term, HB 137 would have an impact on HIV-positive prisoners who developed full-blown cases of AIDS later. Number 379 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked the sponsor at what point a prisoner would be considered to no longer be a threat to society. Number 390 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER responded that CSHB 113 (JUD) sought to more clearly and narrowly define who was a terminally ill prisoner. He commented that the Parole Board was by nature very cautious, and reluctant to issue parole. He said that the board would not issue parole to a prisoner who was deemed a threat to society. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that a prisoner who had cancer could still be capable of committing many crimes. Number 428 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER reiterated his belief that the Parole Board would make use of the special medical parole for terminally ill prisoners in very rare circumstances, often when a prisoner was on his or her deathbed. Number 433 REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND asked the sponsor how terminally ill prisoners were currently cared for. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER understood that the state currently bore the cost of providing medical care to terminally ill prisoners, even if that care had to be provided outside of the correctional facility. Number 447 CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that a representative from the DOC was present. He commented that any situation that required hospitalization for a prisoner resulted in not only medical costs to the state, but also the cost of a guard to accompany that prisoner. Number 461 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if there were ever situations in which terminally ill prisoners resided in hospitals, under guard. Number 466 DANA LATOUR, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, cited the case of one prisoner, who had cost the state over $500,000 in medical costs over the last 18 months. That prisoner had had triple bypass surgery, she said. Number 476 RICH COLLUM, DIRECTOR OF THE PAROLE BOARD, commented that that particular prisoner was eligible for parole; however, the prisoner's attorney would not agree to apply for parole. He noted that not many people would be affected by HB 137, but that even reaching a few prisoners could save the state a great deal of money. Number 483 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked why a person could not collect Medicaid or Medicare while in prison. Number 497 JAN HANSEN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (DHSS), DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DPA), indicated her understanding that persons in correctional facilities were not eligible for Medicaid. Number 504 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the federal government, through Medicaid or Medicare, would allow the state to abrogate its responsibility toward prisoners. Number 512 MS. HANSEN replied that she could only speak to the mechanism by which a person would qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. She commented that a terminally ill released prisoner could very likely meet the guidelines for aid to the disabled. Number 529 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked about a situation in which a terminally ill prisoner, from a wealthy family, was released from prison on special medical parole. "Could that person or his or her family sue the state for not continuing to pay the cost of that person's medical care?" she asked. Number 542 MR. COLLUM replied that parole had to be accepted by a prisoner, under conditions specified, which could include that he or she take care of financial responsibilities. Number 546 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS questioned whether or not a person could be paroled without his or her consent. Number 550 MR. COLLUM replied that a prisoner could not be paroled without his or her consent. Number 554 MR. COLLUM thanked Representative Mulder for being open to the suggestions of the Parole Board. He felt that CSHB 137 (JUD) was a greatly improved version of the original bill. He was still somewhat concerned about the bill's treatment of the term "terminally ill." He said that the bill now stated that the DOC would develop regulations regarding the definition of "terminally ill," and suggested that the committee give the DOC some guidelines for creating that definition. MR. COLLUM believed that HB 137 was primarily directed at HIV-positive prisoners. He said that it was known most people who tested positive for HIV eventually died of AIDS or related complications, but sometimes not for years after they were found to carry HIV. He said that the parole board would feel more comfortable with granting special medical parole if specific conditions could be attached to that parole, including cooperation with public health officials, a prohibition against selling blood, and informing sexual partners and household members of the illness. MR. COLLUM said that the Parole Board had been told by both the state's epidemiologist and the DOC's attorney that they could not treat people differently because of some medical problem. He noted that the board wanted to be able to set conditions of parole for prisoners released due to terminal illness. He commented that dealing with terminally ill prisoners was not new to the DOC or the state. He said that the governor occasionally granted a pardon to a terminally ill prisoner. Number 603 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked how the state could sufficiently control a paroled AIDS patient, so as to guarantee that that person did not pass his or her infection on to others. Number 612 MR. COLLUM noted his similar concerns. He said that some of the definitions of "terminally ill" that he had heard related to bedridden individuals who were incapable of hurting anyone. Number 620 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that a person who only recently contracted AIDS was terminally ill, because he or she would not recover. Yet, she said, that person might be in the same physical condition as any healthy person. She asked Mr. Collum if he wanted the legislature to define "terminally ill." Number 627 MR. COLLUM commented that the legislature had to be comfortable with the definition of "terminally ill." He stated that there were two types of parole: mandatory and discretionary. He said that mandatory parole was granted to those prisoners who earned "good time" prior to their release. That type of parole was not consensual, he noted. He said that some of the prisoners released on mandatory parole might have AIDS, but noted that their supervising parole officers were not aware of that. He expressed a desire for the legislature to develop better supervisory conditions for paroled prisoners. Number 646 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Collum what the Parole Board's definition of "terminally ill" was. Number 650 MR. COLLUM replied that the Parole Board currently experienced no situations in which they applied a definition of "terminally ill." He had spoken with the DOC's doctor, who stated that three doctors would be involved in any decision about whether or not a prisoner was terminally ill. Beyond that, he said that it was not clear to him what the definition of "terminally ill" would be. He had heard people say that the definition referred to a person who was bedridden to the point that doctors felt he or she was unable to commit another crime. Number 660 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN called Mr. Collum's attention to page 5, line 13 of CSHB 137 (JUD), subsection (17), in which a condition of special medical parole could be that a released prisoner refrain from participating in an activity that may endanger the public. He asked if the Parole Board could use that provision to require that a released prisoner not engage in activities that could result in transmission of the AIDS virus. He further asked if that provision would relieve the legislature's anxiety about the Parole Board granting special medical parole to a person infected with the AIDS virus. Number 696 MR. COLLUM commented that criteria now used by the Parole Board in granting discretionary parole, and that same criteria which was contained in HB 137, included that a prisoner would not pose a threat to the public if she or he were placed on parole. He noted that Representative Green was not referring to criteria used for granting parole, but rather conditions for supervision once a prisoner had been released on parole. Number 705 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Collum if, as a condition of release on parole, an AIDS patient would have to be bedridden, in order to not be considered a threat to the public. Number 711 MR. COLLUM was of the opinion that the condition set out in subsection (17) would have nothing to do with a determination about the definition of "terminal illness." He called Representative Green's attention to page 5, lines 22-24, which contained a definition of "special medical parole." He noted that definition appeared to be the only definition of who would be eligible for that particular type of parole. Number 722 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the definition of "special medical parole" did not guarantee society that a person suffering from AIDS, who was released on special medical parole, would not be out infecting innocent members of the public. Number 732 MR. COLLUM replied that the wording in proposed AS 33.16.085 could be strengthened to say that a prisoner could not pose a threat of harm to the public. Number 738 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN was concerned that the bill as currently drafted was placing too much trust in the parolee. MR. COLLUM mentioned that prisoners who had been released on mandatory parole could have their parole revoked if they violated the conditions of their parole. Number 754 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented that AIDS patients were already being released on mandatory parole. She noted that the state currently had no control over those parolees, in terms of whether or not they infected others. She was of the opinion that the state might be liable if it prematurely released an AIDS-infected prisoner on parole. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that in addition to the financial aspects, there were other advantages to paroling terminally ill prisoners, including allowing a dying person to spend time with his or her family. She believed that putting the cut-off point for releasing a prisoner on special medical parole at the point at which they became bedridden would probably not result in a large cost-savings for the state. Number 782 MR. COLLUM mentioned the Neokok decision from a number of years back, in which the DOC had paid an out-of-court settlement of approximately $6 million because of its failure to warn the community about a parolee who was dangerous. He said that the Parole Board wanted to be able to treat people released on special medical parole as criminals, rather than as regular members of the community. Number 795 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS liked the idea of special medical parole for terminally ill prisoners, and supported HB 137. However, she said that the committee should amend the bill so as to better define "terminally ill." Number 800 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that HB 137 gave the Parole Board the discretion to determine whether or not releasing a terminally ill prisoner was in the state's best interest. She said that it would be difficult for the legislature to define "terminally ill" in such a way that it would cover situations which the legislature wanted to include, and not cover situations which the legislature did not want to include. Number 805 MR. COLLUM was completely comfortable with the current Parole Board making determinations of that nature. However, he said that he might not be so comfortable with future members of the Parole Board. TAPE 93-37, SIDE B Number 000 MS. HORETSKI discussed changes incorporated into CSHB 137 (JUD), dated March 19, 1993. The first change, she said, appeared on page 2, line 25. New language had been added to allow the DOC's Commissioner to apply for parole on a prisoner's behalf. She said that this was an attempt to solve the problem of a prisoner who might not want to be paroled, preferring instead to have the state pay his or her medical costs. MS. HORETSKI stated that from page 2, line 26, through page 4, line 6, was all new language. She noted that the rest of CSHB 137 (JUD) was the same as the original bill. She mentioned that there already existed in statute standards for releasing prisoners on discretionary parole. With one exception, she noted, those standards were placed in the section on special medical parole. The first standard, regarding terminal illness, however, was not from the other list of standards, she said. MS. HORETSKI noted that one existing standard for release on discretionary parole was dropped. That standard said that a prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into society would be furthered by release on parole. She said that the committee could add a requirement that the parolee have some degree of incapacitation to this set of standards. However, she commented that it might be difficult to predict all of the situations in which the bill might apply. She noted that CSHB 137 (JUD) was considerably more restrictive than the original bill. MS. HORETSKI called members' attention to a provision on page 3, line 5, which specifically allowed the Parole Board to rescind or revise an individual's parole. That, she said, could occur if an individual was not abiding by the conditions of his or her parole. She stated that CSHB 137 (JUD) included a provision allowing victims to be notified and to comment when an offender was being considered for release on special medical parole. She said that this language had been lifted from existing provisions of the Alaska Statutes. Number 158 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the provision on page 3, line 1 of CSHB 137 (JUD) adequately addressed the concerns he expressed earlier. Number 176 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that if the committee were to write a definition of "terminally ill" that covered worst-case scenarios, they would likely negate the intent of the bill. He felt comfortable with the current construction of HB 137. He noted that currently, when mandatory parole was granted, the problem of what would keep a criminal from committing more crimes existed in every case. He recognized the potential for someone with HIV to infect another individual. However, in reality, he said that many prisoners who carried HIV were released simply because their sentences had ended. Number 195 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that any responsibility that the state had regarding HIV-positive prisoners released on parole already existed. He was comfortable with giving the Parole Board the authority to examine each case on an individual basis. Number 209 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that there was a distinct difference between releasing HIV-positive prisoners at the end of their sentences and releasing prisoners because they had AIDS. Number 218 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS was still uncomfortable with the lack of a definition of "terminally ill" in the bill. She thought that she had heard Mr. Collum state that the legislature should include a definition of "terminally ill" in HB 137. Number 231 MS. LATOUR said that the DOC had considered suggesting that its Medical Advisory Board review and prepare a report to the Parole Board that would determine whether or not a candidate for special medical parole was terminally ill. She said that when the DOC first began working on HB 137, there had been talk about defining a terminally ill person as someone who was likely to live one year or less. She said that later, discussion expanded to include people who might live longer than one year, but who would require ongoing, expensive medical care. MS. LATOUR stated that the Medical Advisory Board currently sometimes prepared reports on prisoners being considered for discretionary parole. Number 264 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER commented that the Alaska Parole Board was very proud of its record of exercising caution when granting prisoners parole. He said that the board needed to be granted a certain amount of flexibility, because it would be difficult for the legislature to envision the scope of all situations to which special medical parole could be applied. He felt very comfortable giving the Parole Board flexibility. Number 301 CHAIRMAN PORTER believed that it would be difficult to adequately define "terminally ill" in HB 137. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Collum to contact the legislature in the future, if he wished for there to be a statutory definition of "terminally ill." Number 331 REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON, speaking via teleconference from Kodiak, asked if the legislature was doing itself a disservice by not including strict guidelines in HB 137. He noted that although Representative Mulder might feel comfortable with the current Parole Board, he might feel differently in the future, when the members of the Parole Board changed. Number 357 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER commented that parole was based on an educated guess, and said that there were no guarantees. He applauded the work of the present Parole Board, and expressed his belief that future Parole Boards would have the same judicious nature. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON cited the vengeance factor of some prisoners. He noted that his comfort level was not as high as that of Representative Mulder. Number 393 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the committee needed to add language to HB 137 regarding the DOC's Medical Advisory Board. Number 399 MR. COLLUM did not know whether or not inclusion of that language was appropriate. Number 410 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if that could be accomplished through the regulatory process. Number 412 MS. LATOUR replied that HB 137 did not provide the opportunity for the DOC to write regulations. Number 413 MS. HORETSKI expressed her opinion that HB 137 provided the opportunity for the DOC to adopt regulations, through the amendment of an existing statute, located on page 2, line 14 of CSHB 137 (JUD). MS. LATOUR reviewed the language and agreed that the DOC would have the authority to adopt regulations in this area. Number 432 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 137 (JUD) dated March 19, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES then made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 137 (JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Number 447 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 67 was the next item of business before the committee. He mentioned that Representative Nordlund had amendments to offer. HB 67: ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Number 465 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if the committee was working off of CSHB 67 (JUD). REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS reminded the committee that they had adopted CSHB 67 (JUD) at the last meeting where HB 67 had been discussed. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that the AMENDMENT which he had just distributed pertained to CSHB 67 (HES). He said that his amendment would delay the effective date of the bill. He stated that the bill before the committee would take effect on July 1, 1993. His amendment would change the effective date to January 1, 1994, he said. He added that the reason he was offering the amendment was to give welfare recipients sufficient time to plan for the drastic reduction to their monthly income. He noted that his amendment would result in a reduction of savings to the state. Number 504 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested changing the reference in the proposed amendment from "page 3, line 26" to "page 3, line 24". REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that he had not altered his amendments to comport with CSHB 67 (JUD). He noted that staff had informed him that Representative Green's change would be appropriate. Number 520 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that Representative Nordlund's amendment would result in the savings to the state for fiscal year 1994 being decreased by half, or $217,000. Savings to the state for future fiscal years would remain the same, she added. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND indicated that his understanding was the same as that of Representative James. Number 531 MS. HANSEN commented that Representative James' calculations referred only to the interim assistance section of HB 67. She noted that the ratable reduction portion of the bill would result in an $8.6 million dollar savings to the state for fiscal year 1994, and that the adult public assistance section of the bill would result in a $4 million savings to the state for the same fiscal year. MS. HANSEN said that if Representative Nordlund's amendment was adopted, it would reduce the savings to the state for fiscal year 1994 by half, but she reminded the committee members that there were six fiscal notes attached to HB 67. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed serious concerns about Representative Nordlund's amendment. Number 554 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked how Representative Nordlund's amendment would affect a 77-year-old woman living at the Glory Hole homeless shelter in Juneau, who had been mentioned at the last meeting at which HB 67 had been discussed. MS. HANSEN could not speak to that particular individual. However, she commented that the smallest impact for an Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipient would be $53 per month, and the largest impact would be $175 per month. She said that an individual on Aid to the Disabled would receive $43 less per month. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED his AMENDMENT. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Nordlund and Davidson voted "YEA." Representatives Green, Phillips, Kott, James, and Porter voted "NAY." And so, the AMENDMENT FAILED. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the rules provided that a committee member participating by telephone could vote on amendments or other procedural items, but could not participate in a vote to move a bill, as that required a signature. Number 601 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked the Chairman to clarify what the action of not adopting the amendment meant. Number 603 CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that the committee had before it CSHB 67 (JUD), dated March 11, 1993. Number 605 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if the effective date would be July 1, 1993. Number 606 CHAIRMAN PORTER replied in the affirmative. Number 609 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND OFFERED ANOTHER AMENDMENT. He said that his amendment would bring HB 67 back to the form in which it was initially introduced by the governor. He said that the amendment would allow for a one-year suspension of the cost of living allowance (COLA), after which there would be automatic COLAs in future years. He noted that the DHSS had indicated that they would support his amendment. He commented that state employees received COLAs as a result of the contract negotiating process. However, he noted that public assistance recipients had no one who would bargain for COLAs on their behalf. Number 637 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that Representative Nordlund's amendment appeared to be essentially identical to an amendment that he had offered during the previous meeting on HB 67. She said that the other amendment had already been voted down. Number 642 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND responded that the amendments were not identical. Number 650 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS countered that the committee had already voted down parts of Representative Nordlund's currently proposed amendment. Number 657 CHAIRMAN PORTER ruled that he would allow the amendment to be considered, as it was not identical to the previously offered amendment. Number 659 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that the Judiciary Committee was overstepping its bounds. She said that HB 67 had received considerable testimony and discussion in the HESS Committee, which was the committee she believed should handle substantive changes to the bill. Number 668 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that protocol in the House allowed any committee to make any amendments that it wished, regardless of the nature of the amendments. Number 676 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated her belief that the HESS Committee should be the one making substantive changes to the bill, and that the Judiciary Committee should look at the judicial aspects of it. Number 690 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS cited a rule from Mason's Manual which held that once an amendment was defeated, that same amendment could not be brought before a body. She said that in essence, Representative Nordlund's recent amendment was identical to one which he had offered at an earlier meeting. Number 697 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON commented that some members of the Judiciary Committee were overly concerned with actions taken by other committees. He noted that just as the House did not jump in and swim with the Senate, neither did the Judiciary Committee have to jump in and swim with other committees. He said that the committee process allowed the issues to bounce back and forth, making the process a healthy one. He hoped that committee members would not be overly prejudiced by the work of other committees, and give each bill before the Judiciary Committee a thorough review. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Ms. Hansen to comment on the effect of HB 67 on the 77-year-old woman who lived at the Glory Hole. He asked Ms. Hansen to compare her monthly payment today, with what it would be in 1996. TAPE 93-38, SIDE A Number 000 MS. HANSEN could not speak to that particular individual's situation. Number 010 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON cited more specifics of the particular individual's situation. He said that the woman was a 77-year-old welfare recipient, with no other dependents and no visible means of support. He asked Ms. Hansen to describe the monthly benefit that that person would receive today, and in 1996, if HB 67 was enacted. MS. HANSEN replied that a 77-year-old individual receiving Adult Public Assistance benefits would receive $778 per month today. Under CSHB 67 (JUD), she said, the amount would remain the same, except that part of the $778 was federally funded, and therefore eligible for a federal COLA. Approximately 3% would be added to the $447 in federal funds, she said. Number 059 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND MOVED HIS AMENDMENT. Number 065 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED. Number 067 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Ms. Hansen to convey the DHSS' position on his amendment. Number 072 MS. HANSEN said that the DHSS supported the governor's original HB 67. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Nordlund and Davidson voted "YEA." Representatives Green, Kott, Phillips, James, and Porter voted "NAY." And so, the AMENDMENT FAILED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee now had the unamended CSHB 67 (JUD) before it. Number 095 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 67 (JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott, Green, Phillips, James, and Porter voted "YEA." Representative Nordlund voted "NAY." And so, CSHB 67 (JUD) MOVED out of committee. Number 110 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 136 was the next item of business before the committee. HB 136: DRUNK DRIVING AND BREATH TEST OFFENSES Number 125 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 136 commented that HB 136 included another recommendation from the Sentencing Commission's report. He said that the report advocated alternative sentencing for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) offenses. He said that his bill was a cooperative effort among himself, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the DOC, the DOL, the Court System, and the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that HB 136 was introduced to address the tremendous backlog within the court system pertaining to DWI offenders serving their sentences. He said that HB 136 held that DWI offenders would serve their sentences in halfway houses, and would pay for the cost of their incarceration. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that currently, it costs the state approximately $140-160 per day to house an offender in a jail or prison. He said that incarcerating DWI offenders in halfway houses would cost 1/3 to 1/2 of that amount. He said that HB 136 would require an offender to pay for the cost of her or his incarceration at the time of sentencing. The court would be allowed to tap an offender's Permanent Fund Dividend check if the offender refused to pay the cost of the incarceration. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that when an offender served time at a halfway house, he or she would also be required to perform 24 hours of community service. He said that this was what would happen to a first-time DWI offender, or a person who refused to take a breath test. He said further that a person convicted of a second DWI offense would serve 20 days in a halfway house. He noted that the DOC had said that this was where the greatest cost savings to the state lay. HB 138: LIMITED DRIVERS' LICENSES REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that HB 136 allowed the department flexibility in that if no halfway house existed in a particular area, the department could determine an appropriate facility for a DWI offender to serve his or her sentence. He said that the cost of incarceration would be standardized throughout the state. He added that provisions of HB 138 had been rolled into HB 136. Additionally, he said, some of the DMV's concerns regarding limited licenses were addressed in HB 136. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that currently, a person convicted of a DWI offense for the first through sixth time was eligible to apply for a limited license. Number 220 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that Representative Mulder had been very generous in only requiring 80 hours of community service for second DWI offenders. She said that when she had worked on a similar bill in the past, they had considered requiring 200 hours of community service. Number 231 JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF OF DRIVER SERVICES, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS), said that in 1990, legislation passed which granted limited licenses for people convicted of up to a sixth drunk driving offense. She commented that no fiscal note had accompanied the 1990 legislation; however, the law had impacted both the DMV and the court system immensely. Additionally, she said that the 1990 law had taken the state further away from eligibility for certain federal highway grants. MS. HENSLEY stated that the federal government frowned upon states giving limited licenses to anyone but first offenders. MS. HENSLEY said that the draft committee substitute before the committee would bring Alaska one step closer to being eligible for those federal grants. She said that HB 136 would allow the DPS and the court to review the record of an offender whose license was presently suspended, as well. For individuals whose licenses were revoked for 40 or 50 years, she said, the DPS could choose to shorten the revocation period, so that a person could see the "light at the end of the tunnel." Number 310 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that provisions from HB 138 had been rolled into HB 136. He said that the intent of HB 138, as rolled into HB 136, was to address a problem regarding driving privileges for persons with multiple drunk driving convictions. He noted that HB 136 would give the DMV the ability to review an individual's record, once the minimum time for each revocation had passed. CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that it would be very hard for a person to continue with a regimen of abstinence and rehabilitation if there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Additionally, he said that because limited licenses had been so problematic, the state would rather have the ability to get an individual back driving, without the problems of a limited license. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON announced that he had to leave in order to attend another meeting. He signed off of the teleconference at 2:54 p.m. Number 366 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what the current fine was for persons caught driving in violation of a limited license. Number 377 MIKE FORD, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, said that existing law was contained in the draft committee substitute, and that the fine was $1,000. Number 378 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if a person paid a $1,000 fine each time she or he was convicted of a drunk driving offense. Number 385 MR. FORD commented that the section of the draft committee substitute which Representative Phillips was looking at, section 7, pertained to persons who drove without a license. Number 400 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that a $1,000 fine might not mean anything to people who did not respect the revocation of their driver's license. MR. FORD noted that some people were not deterred by anything, except for being in jail. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested considering raising the fine from $1,000 to $10,000. Number 403 MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, said that the problem, from a law enforcement perspective, was that many people convicted of drunk driving offenses did not have even $100. When a person had nothing, she said, he or she could lose nothing. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned the permanent fund dividend check. MS. KNUTH commented that many of these people never even saw their permanent fund dividend checks, as they had already gone for child support and other obligations. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS applauded the provision at the bottom of page 5 of the draft committee substitute, which said that the cost of imprisonment would not exceed $1,000. Number 422 MS. KNUTH mentioned some technical problems with the draft committee substitute. She said that it would be best to draft another committee substitute before acting on HB 136. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Ford when another draft committee substitute would be available. Number 441 MR. FORD said that the changes to which Ms. Knuth was referring were not extensive; however, he cautioned that HB 136 was complex in nature. Because of that, he recommended that all parties have time to digest the bill's contents and ensure that the bill did what it was intended to do. Number 453 MS. HENSLEY commented that the provision on page 4, lines 20-21 of the draft committee substitute, instituting a $100 fee for a limited driver's license, would change the DPS' fiscal note to be a revenue-generating one. Number 465 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if a new committee substitute could be ready by the following Wednesday. He said that he shared Mr. Ford's concern that all parties have time to digest HB 136's contents. Number 471 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the proposed amendments had been reviewed by the sponsor. Number 476 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the draft committee substitute for HB 136 was the result of a team effort. Number 479 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER was unaware that there were problems with the current draft committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS was concerned that agencies were bringing amendments to the attention of the Judiciary Committee without first contacting a bill's sponsor. Number 482 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that HB 136 would be held over until a new draft committee substitute could be prepared. He stated that he would try to reschedule the bill for the following Wednesday. Number 495 MR. FORD commented that he could probably have a draft committee substitute prepared and distributed by Monday, giving all concerned parties time to review it prior to the Wednesday meeting. Number 506 ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:03 p.m.