Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/23/1993 01:00 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 23, 1993                                        
                            1:00 p.m.                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
                                                                               
  Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman                                                  
  Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                             
  Rep. Gail Phillips                                                           
  Rep. Pete Kott                                                               
  Rep. Joe Green                                                               
  Rep. Cliff Davidson                                                          
  Rep. Jim Nordlund                                                            
                                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
                                                                               
  SB 173    "An Act relating to health insurance for small                     
            employers; and providing for an effective date."                   
                                                                               
            SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE PASSED OUT                     
            WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION                                      
                                                                               
  SB 149    "An Act revising the laws governing financial                      
            institutions and relating to trust companies, the                  
            Alaska Small Loans Act, and the Premium Financing                  
            Act; amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 17                 
            and Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b); and                      
            providing for an effective date."                                  
                                                                               
            HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE PASSED OUT                    
            WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION                                      
                                                                               
  SB 76     "An Act requiring regulations relating to                          
            pull-tabs to be consistent with North American                     
            Gaming Regulators Association standards on                         
            pull-tabs to the extent permitted by charitable                    
            gaming laws; allowing permittees to contract with                  
            vendors to sell pull-tabs on behalf of the                         
            permittee at an establishment holding a package                    
            store license and certain establishments holding a                 
            beverage dispensary license; allowing                              
            municipalities to prohibit vendors from conducting                 
            gaming activities within the municipality;                         
            restricting the purchase of pull-tabs by                           
            permittees, licensees, and vendors and their                       
            owners, managers, and employees; requiring                         
            receipts before prizes of $50 or more may be                       
            awarded in pull-tab games; prohibiting                             
            distributors from supplying pull-tabs to vendors;                  
            requiring the registration of vendors and                          
            regulating activities involving them; requiring                    
            the licensing of out-of-state pull-tab                             
            manufacturers; requiring the department regulating                 
            charitable gaming to approve contracts between                     
            permittees and operators before gaming may occur;                  
            preventing persons with felony convictions or                      
            convictions for crimes involving theft or                          
            dishonesty or a violation of gambling laws from                    
            being involved in charitable gaming activities as                  
            a permittee, licensee, vendor, person responsible                  
            for the operation of an activity, fund raiser or                   
            consultant of a licensee or vendor, or employee in                 
            a managerial or supervisory capacity, and                          
            providing exceptions for certain persons whose                     
            convictions are at least 10 years old and are not                  
            for violation of an unclassified felony described                  
            in AS 11, a class A felony, or extortion; relating                 
            to multiple-beneficiary charitable gaming permits                  
            and door prizes for charitable gaming; requiring                   
            operators to pay permittees each quarter at least                  
            30 percent of the adjusted gross income from a                     
            pull-tab activity and limiting operators to                        
            expenses of not more than 70 percent of the                        
            adjusted gross income from that activity;                          
            requiring operators to pay permittees each quarter                 
            at least 10 percent of the adjusted gross income                   
            from a charitable gaming activity other than                       
            pull-tabs and limiting operators to expenses of                    
            not more than 90 percent of the adjusted gross                     
            income from that activity; requiring a permittee                   
            who uses a pull-tab vendor to enter into a                         
            contract with that vendor; requiring a vendor                      
            contracting with a permittee to pay the permittee                  
            at least 50 percent of the ideal net for each                      
            pull-tab series delivered to the vendor by the                     
            permittee; requiring that operators report an                      
            adjusted gross income of at least 15 percent of                    
            gross income each quarter; allowing the                            
            commissioner regulating charitable gaming to issue                 
            orders prohibiting violations of state gaming                      
            laws; relating to the authority of the                             
            commissioner regulating charitable gaming to                       
            suspend or revoke a permit, license, or                            
            registration; prohibiting the direct contribution                  
            of proceeds of a bingo or pull-tab game to a                       
            candidate for a public office of the state or a                    
            political subdivision of the state or to that                      
            candidate's campaign organization; prohibiting the                 
            payment of any portion of the net proceeds of a                    
            charitable gaming activity to a registered                         
            lobbyist; relating to `political uses' and                         
            `political organizations' as those terms are used                  
            in the charitable gaming statutes; and providing                   
            for an effective date."                                            
                                                                               
            SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE PASSED OUT                     
            WITH NO RECOMMENDATION                                             
                                                                               
  SCR 4     Relating to the Alaska Supreme Court's                             
            interpretation of Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure                   
            82 and requesting that the court modify its                        
            interpretation of that rule.                                       
                                                                               
            NOT HEARD                                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
                                                                               
  SEN. STEVE RIEGER                                                            
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  Capitol Building, Room 516                                                   
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-3879                                                             
  Position Statement:  Prime sponsor of SB 173                                 
                                                                               
  JAMIE PARSONS                                                                
  Alaska State Chamber of Commerce                                             
  217 Second Street, Suite 201                                                 
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  586-2323                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported SB 173                                        
                                                                               
  JAY FRANK                                                                    
  State Farm/Allstate                                                          
  431 North Franklin Street                                                    
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  586-5777                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported SB 173                                        
                                                                               
  GORDON EVANS                                                                 
  Health Insurance Association of America                                      
  318 Fourth Street                                                            
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  586-3210                                                             
  Position Statement:  Discussed SB 173                                        
                                                                               
  RESA JERREL                                                                  
  National Federation of Independent Businesses                                
  9159 Skywood                                                                 
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  789-4278                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported SB 173                                        
                                                                               
  PAUL FUHS, Commissioner                                                      
  Department of Commerce and Economic Development                              
  P.O. Box 110800                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-2500                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported SB 173; Discussed SB 76                       
                                                                               
  REP. BETTYE DAVIS                                                            
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  Court Building, Room 600                                                     
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-3875                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported SB 173                                        
                                                                               
  WILLIS KIRKPATRICK, Director                                                 
  Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations                             
  Department of Commerce and Economic Development                              
  P.O. Box 110807                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-2521                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported amendment to SB 149                           
                                                                               
  JACK BARRY                                                                   
  1831 Tongass Avenue                                                          
  Ketchikan, Alaska 99901                                                      
  Phone:  225-9841                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported amendment to SB 149                           
                                                                               
  ARNE IVERSEN                                                                 
  1831 Tongass Avenue                                                          
  Ketchikan, Alaska 99901                                                      
  Phone:  225-9841                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported amendment to SB 149                           
                                                                               
  JAMES BARRY                                                                  
  1831 Tongass Avenue                                                          
  Ketchikan, Alaska 99901                                                      
  Phone:  225-9841                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported amendment to SB 149                           
                                                                               
  JACK DAVIES                                                                  
  100 Main Street                                                              
  Ketchikan, Alaska 99901                                                      
  Phone:  225-2179                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported amendment to SB 149                           
                                                                               
  JIM SARVELA                                                                  
  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                   
  First Bank                                                                   
  P.O. Box 7920                                                                
  Ketchikan, Alaska 99901                                                      
  Phone:  225-4219                                                             
  Position Statement:  Deferred to Mr. Bill Moran                              
                                                                               
  BILL MORAN                                                                   
  President                                                                    
  First Bank                                                                   
  P.O. Box 7920                                                                
  Ketchikan, Alaska 99901                                                      
  Phone:  225-4202                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported amendment to SB 149                           
                                                                               
  GREG ERKINS                                                                  
  Alaska Association of Realtors                                               
  3340 Arctic Boulevard                                                        
  Anchorage, Alaska 99503                                                      
  Phone:  562-3382                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported amendment to SB 149                           
                                                                               
  GARY ROTH                                                                    
  President                                                                    
  Denali State Bank                                                            
  119 North Cushman                                                            
  Fairbanks, Alaska 99701                                                      
  Phone:  456-1400                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported amendment to SB 149                           
                                                                               
  GINA MCBRIDE, Executive Director                                             
  Alaska Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers                              
  P. O. Box 203088                                                             
  Anchorage, Alaska 99520                                                      
  Phone:  349-2500                                                             
  Position Statement:  Supported amendment to SB 149                           
                                                                               
  JOSH FINK                                                                    
  Office of Sen. Tim Kelly                                                     
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  Capitol Building, Room 101                                                   
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-3822                                                             
  Position Statement:  Discussed SB 149                                        
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI                                                               
  Committee Counsel                                                            
  House Judiciary Committee                                                    
  Capitol Building, Room 120                                                   
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  Phone:  465-6841                                                             
  Position Statement:  Discussed SB 149                                        
                                                                               
  CHIP THOMA                                                                   
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Position Statement:  Discussed SB 76                                         
                                                                               
  JOHN HANSEN, Gaming Manager                                                  
  Division of Occupational Licensing                                           
  Department of Commerce and Economic Development                              
  P.O. Box 110806                                                              
  Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                         
  Phone:  465-2581                                                             
  Position Statement:  Discussed SB 76                                         
                                                                               
  MARK HIGGINS                                                                 
  Higgins Corporation                                                          
  3707 Woodland Drive, Suite 2                                                 
  Anchorage, Alaska 99517                                                      
  Phone:  243-7908                                                             
  Position Statement:  Discussed SB 76                                         
                                                                               
  REP. CARL MOSES                                                              
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  Capitol Building, Room 204                                                   
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-4451                                                             
  Position Statement:  Discussed SB 76                                         
                                                                               
  JERRY LUCKHAUPT                                                              
  Division of Legal Services                                                   
  Legislative Affairs Agency                                                   
  130 Seward Street, Suite 401                                                 
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  Phone:  465-2450                                                             
  Position Statement:  Discussed SB 76                                         
                                                                               
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
                                                                               
  BILL:  SB 173                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: GROUP HEALTH INS. FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS                           
  BILL VERSION: CSSB 173(FIN)                                                  
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) RIEGER,Pearce,Salo,Kelly,Phillips;                    
  REPRESENTATIVE(S)B.Davis,Nordlund,Ulmer,Brice,Toohey                         
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  03/25/93       946    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/25/93       946    (S)   LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE                        
  03/30/93              (S)   L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/30/93              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  03/30/93              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  03/31/93      1003    (S)   L&C RPT  4DP 1AM                                 
  03/31/93      1003    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                          
  04/08/93      1269    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  5DP SAME TITLE                      
  04/08/93      1269    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO CS                   
  04/08/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  04/12/93      1307    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/12/93                       
  04/12/93      1309    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  04/12/93      1309    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  04/12/93      1310    (S)   AM NO  1  FAILED  Y5 N11 E3 A1                   
  04/12/93      1311    (S)   AM NO  2  FAILED  Y5 N11 E3 A1                   
  04/12/93      1311    (S)   AM NO  3  FAILED  Y6 N11 E3                      
  04/12/93      1312    (S)   AM NO  4  WITHDRAWN                              
  04/12/93      1313    (S)   AM NO  5  FAILED  Y5 N11 E3 A1                   
  04/12/93      1313    (S)   FAILED TO ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG                     
                              Y11 N6 E3                                        
  04/12/93      1313    (S)   THIRD READING 4/13 CALENDAR                      
  04/13/93      1338    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB
                              173(FIN)                                         
  04/13/93      1338    (S)   RET TO SECOND FOR AM 6 FAILED                    
                              Y10 N10                                          
  04/13/93      1339    (S)   PASSED Y19 N1                                    
  04/13/93      1339    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE CLAUSE VOTE SAME                  
                              AS PSG                                           
  04/13/93      1339    (S)   Adams  NOTICE OF                                 
                              RECONSIDERATION                                  
  04/14/93      1393    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP-IN THIRD READING                  
  04/14/93      1394    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION                        
                              Y19 N1                                           
  04/14/93      1394    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATES VOTE SAME AS                     
                              PASSAGE                                          
  04/14/93      1396    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  04/15/93      1249    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  04/15/93      1250    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  04/15/93      1272    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S):B.DAVIS                         
  04/16/93      1303    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S):NORDLUND,ULMER                  
  04/19/93      1341    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S):BRICE                           
  04/21/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/21/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  04/22/93      1450    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): TOOHEY                         
  04/23/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  SB 149                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: REVISION OF BANKING CODE                                        
  BILL VERSION: CSSB 149(FIN)                                                  
  SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE                                                 
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  03/05/93       616    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/05/93       616    (S)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  03/19/93              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                   
  03/19/93              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/22/93       898    (S)   JUD RPT  1DP 2NR                                 
  03/22/93       898    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                          
  03/22/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  03/23/93       911    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  5DP 2NR                             
                              SAME TITLE                                       
  03/23/93       911    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED)                          
  03/23/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  03/23/93              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  03/24/93              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/31/93      1004    (S)   RULES   3CAL 1NR   3/31/93                       
  03/31/93      1007    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/31/93      1007    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  03/31/93      1008    (S)   ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FAILED                        
                              Y12 N8                                           
  03/31/93      1008    (S)   THIRD READING 4/1 CALENDAR                       
  04/01/93      1031    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME                              
                              CSSB 149(FIN)                                    
  04/01/93      1032    (S)   PASSED Y18 N2                                    
  04/01/93      1032    (S)   COURT RULE CHANGES VOTE SAME                     
                              AS PASSAGE                                       
  04/01/93      1032    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE VOTE SAME AS                      
                              PASSAGE                                          
  04/01/93      1032    (S)   ADAMS  NOTICE OF                                 
                              RECONSIDERATION                                  
  04/02/93      1079    (S)   RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                     
  04/02/93      1081    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  04/02/93       955    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  04/02/93       955    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE,JUDICIARY                       
  04/13/93              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                       
  04/13/93              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  04/14/93      1203    (H)   L&C RPT HCS(L&C)  2DP 5NR                        
  04/14/93      1204    (H)   DP: MULDER, HUDSON                               
  04/14/93      1204    (H)   NR: PORTER,SITTON,WILLIAMS,                      
                              GREEN, MACKIE                                    
  04/14/93      1204    (H)   -SEN ZERO FN (DCED)  3/22/93                     
  04/19/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/19/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  04/19/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  04/20/93      1353    (H)   JUD RPT HCS(L&C) 4DP                             
  04/20/93      1354    (H)   DP: KOTT,GREEN,PORTER,PHILLIPS                   
  04/20/93      1354    (H)   -SENATE ZERO FN (DCED) 3/22/93                   
  04/21/93      1420    (H)   RETURN TO JUD  COMMITTEE                         
  04/23/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  SB  76                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: CHARITABLE GAMING RESTRICTIONS                                  
  BILL VERSION: CSSB 76(FIN)                                                   
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PEARCE,Kelly,Frank,Sharp,Taylor,                      
  Phillips,Halford                                                             
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  02/19/30              (S)   L&C AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                   
  01/29/93       188    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/29/93       188    (S)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                      
  02/11/93              (S)   L&C AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211                     
  02/11/93              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  02/25/93              (S)   L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  02/25/93              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  03/04/93              (S)   L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/04/93              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  03/05/93       612    (S)   L&C RPT  CS  1DP 2NR 1AM                         
                              NEW TITLE                                        
  03/05/93       612    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB &                         
                              CS (DCED)                                        
  04/01/93              (S)   JUD AT 03:30 PM CAPITOL RM 120                   
  04/01/93              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  04/02/93      1073    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  2DP 2NR 1DNP NEW                    
                              TITLE                                            
  04/02/93      1075    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DCED)                         
  04/02/93      1075    (S)   FINANCE REFERRAL ADDED                           
  04/02/93      1080    (S)   FIN WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING                        
                              NOTICE,RULE 23                                   
  04/07/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  04/07/93              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  04/07/93              (S)   FIN AT 06:00 PM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  04/08/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  04/10/93              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  04/12/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  04/15/93              (S)   FIN AT 06:45 PM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  04/17/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  04/17/93              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  04/17/93              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
                              ROOM 518                                         
  04/18/93      1465    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  6DP 1AM  NEW TITLE                  
  04/18/93      1466    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DCED/REV)                     
  04/18/93      1466    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO                      
                              CS (DCED)                                        
  04/19/93      1483    (S)   RULES 3CAL 1DNP   4/19/93                        
  04/19/93      1485    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  04/19/93      1486    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED Y14 N6                           
  04/19/93      1496    (S)   AM NO  1  MOVED BY KERTTULA                      
  04/19/93      1496    (S)   AM NO  1  FAILED  Y10 N10                        
  04/19/93      1497    (S)   AM NO  2  MOVED BY LITTLE                        
  04/19/93      1497    (S)   AM NO  2  FAILED  Y9  N11                        
  04/19/93      1498    (S)   AM NO  3  MOVED BY LITTLE                        
  04/19/93      1499    (S)   AM NO  3  FAILED  Y10 N10                        
  04/19/93      1504    (S)   AM NO  4  MOVED BY SALO                          
  04/19/93      1504    (S)   AM NO  4  FAILED  Y9  N11                        
  04/19/93      1505    (S)   AM NO  5  MOVED BY DUNCAN                        
  04/19/93      1505    (S)   AM NO  5  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1506    (S)   AM NO  6  MOVED BY ZHAROFF                       
  04/19/93      1506    (S)   AM NO  6  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1507    (S)   AM NO  7  MOVED BY LINCOLN                       
  04/19/93      1510    (S)   AM NO  7  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1510    (S)   AM NO  8  MOVED BY LINCOLN                       
  04/19/93      1513    (S)   AM NO  8  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1516    (S)   AM NO  9  MOVED BY ELLIS                         
                                        & WITHDRAWN                            
  04/19/93      1516    (S)   AM NO 10  MOVED BY SALO                          
  04/19/93      1517    (S)   AM NO 10  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1517    (S)   AM NO 11  MOVED BY DONLEY                        
  04/19/93      1518    (S)   AM 1 TO AM 11 FAILED Y8 N12                      
  04/19/93      1518    (S)   AM NO 11  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1519    (S)   AM NO 12  MOVED BY DONLEY                        
  04/19/93      1520    (S)   AM NO 12  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1521    (S)   AM NO 13  MOVED BY LITTLE                        
                                        & WITHDRAWN                            
  04/19/93      1520    (S)   AM NO 14  MOVED BY ELLIS                         
  04/19/93      1523    (S)   AM NO 14  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1523    (S)   AM NO 15  MOVED BY LITTLE                        
  04/19/93      1524    (S)   AM NO 15  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1524    (S)   AM NO 16  MOVED BY ZHAROFF                       
  04/19/93      1528    (S)   AM NO 16  FAILED  Y4 N16                         
  04/19/93      1528    (S)   AM NO 17  MOVED BY LITTLE                        
  04/19/93      1528    (S)   AM NO 17  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1529    (S)   AM NO 18  MOVED BY ELLIS                         
  04/19/93      1530    (S)   AM NO 18  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1530    (S)   AM NO 19  MOVED BY DUNCAN                        
  04/19/93      1531    (S)   AM NO 19  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1532    (S)   AM NO 20  MOVED BY LITTLE                        
  04/19/93      1532    (S)   AM NO 20  FAILED  Y10 N10                        
  04/19/93      1533    (S)   AM NO 21  MOVED BY ELLIS                         
  04/19/93      1533    (S)   AM NO 21  FAILED  Y8  N12                        
  04/19/93      1534    (S)   AM NO 22  MOVED BY LITTLE                        
  04/19/93      1534    (S)   AM NO 22  FAILED  Y9 N11                         
  04/19/93      1541    (S)   AM NO 23  MOVED BY ZHAROFF                       
  04/19/93      1541    (S)   AM NO 23  WITHDRAWN                              
  04/19/93      1542    (S)   ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FLD                           
                              Y11 N9                                           
  04/19/93      1542    (S)   THIRD READING 4/20 CALENDAR                      
  04/20/93      1592    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME                              
                              CSSB 76(FIN)                                     
  04/20/93      1593    (S)   RET 2ND RESCIND ACTION AM 20                     
                              FLD Y9 N11                                       
  04/20/93      1594    (S)   RET 2ND RESCIND ACTION AM 10                     
                              FLD Y10 N10                                      
  04/20/93      1594    (S)   MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR                      
  04/20/93      1597    (S)   RET TO 2ND TO RESCIND RULED                      
                              OUT OF ORDER                                     
  04/20/93      1598    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):KELLY,FRANK,SHARP,                  
  04/20/93      1598    (S)   TAYLOR, PHILLIPS, HALFORD                        
  04/20/93      1600    (S)   PASSED Y13 N7                                    
  04/20/93      1600    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y16 N4                     
  04/20/93      1600    (S)   Adams  NOTICE OF                                 
                              RECONSIDERATION                                  
  04/21/93      1614    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD                        
                              READING                                          
  04/21/93      1615    (S)   TITLE AM NO 24   MOVED BY                        
                              DUNCAN                                           
  04/21/93      1615    (S)   AM NO 24     FAILED  Y9 N11                      
  04/21/93      1616    (S)   RULING OF CHAIR UPHELD                           
                              Y11 N9                                           
  04/21/93      1618    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION                        
                              Y15 N5                                           
  04/21/93      1618    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATES VOTE SAME AS                     
                              PASSAGE                                          
  04/21/93      1642    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  04/22/93      1425    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  04/22/93      1426    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  04/22/93      1431    (H)   MOTION TO WAIVE PUBLIC NOTICE                    
                              RULE 23(D)                                       
  04/22/93      1431    (H)   MOTION WITHDRAWN-WORKSESSION                     
                              4/22                                             
  04/22/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/22/93              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  04/23/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  SCR  4                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: REQUEST CHANGE IN RULE 82 FEES                                  
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR                                                
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  03/29/93       974    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/29/93       974    (S)   JUDICIARY                                        
  04/05/93              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211                     
  04/06/93              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211                     
  04/12/93              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211                     
  04/13/93      1331    (S)   JUD RPT  3DP 1NR                                 
  04/13/93      1331    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.JUD)                         
  04/16/93      1440    (S)   RULES RPT  3CAL 1NR   4/16/93                    
  04/16/93      1449    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  04/16/93      1449    (S)   PASSED Y11 N9                                    
  04/16/93      1449    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF                                
                              RECONSIDERATION                                  
  04/18/93      1462    (S)   HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO                       
                              4/19/93                                          
  04/19/93      1554    (S)   RECONSIDERATION TAKEN UP                         
  04/19/93      1554    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION                        
                              Y11 N9                                           
  04/19/93      1555    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  04/20/93      1346    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  04/20/93      1346    (H)   JUDICIARY                                        
  04/23/93              (H)   JUD AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 120                      
                                                                               
                                                                               
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-71, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to                 
  order at 1:43 p.m. on April 23, 1993.  A quorum was present.                 
  Chairman Porter announced that the hearing on SB 173 and                     
  SB 149 was being teleconferenced; therefore, those two bills                 
  would be before the committee first.  Later, he said, the                    
  committee would hear SB 76 and SCR 4.                                        
  SB 173  GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS                           
                                                                               
  Number 061                                                                   
                                                                               
  SEN. STEVE RIEGER, PRIME SPONSOR OF SB 173, explained that                   
  the bill had passed the Senate by a vote of 19-1.  The                       
  purpose of the bill, he said, was to increase the                            
  availability of health insurance to small employers.  Senate                 
  Bill 173 would set up a reinsurance mechanism through which                  
  small employers' insurance plans would be pooled, thereby                    
  taking on characteristics of a single, larger insurance                      
  pool.  Every insurance company offering small business                       
  insurance in Alaska would participate in the reinsurance                     
  pool, he added.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 116                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked, if an employer did not have insurance                 
  coverage, could he or she participate as a member of a group                 
  of individuals that did have coverage?                                       
                                                                               
  Number 124                                                                   
                                                                               
  SEN. RIEGER explained that coverage could not be denied to                   
  any individual.  He stated that a person would work through                  
  a private insurance company, which would offer a person the                  
  small group health insurance plan.  The policy would be                      
  underwritten and the person assigned a "risk rating," he                     
  said.  He noted that the procedure included in SB 173 was                    
  similar to the way that insurance now worked, except that                    
  the bill included a reinsurance mechanism, in case there                     
  were some high-risk individuals.  He said that SB 173 would                  
  avoid the problem of entire groups of employees being denied                 
  insurance coverage because of one high-risk individual                       
  within that group.  It would also avoid a situation in which                 
  the one high-risk person was denied coverage.                                
                                                                               
  Number 144                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON commented that the sponsor had emphasized the                  
  "pro-business" aspects of SB 173.  He asked if the bill                      
  could also be characterized as "pro-worker."                                 
                                                                               
  Number 151                                                                   
                                                                               
  SEN. RIEGER replied that SB 173 would be considered a "pro-                  
  worker" bill, as it was the individual employees who needed                  
  the insurance coverage.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 166                                                                   
                                                                               
  JAMIE PARSONS, representing the ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF                      
  COMMERCE (ASCC), testified in support of SB 173 because it                   
  offered an avenue for small business owners to provide                       
  health insurance coverage for their employees.  He said that                 
  ASCC endorsed the bill because it guaranteed availability of                 
  insurance coverage for all employees in a group, regardless                  
  of individual health risks.  Also, he said, it guaranteed                    
  renewability of coverage, regardless of cases of health                      
  deterioration and number and size of previously submitted                    
  claims.  Senate Bill 173 allowed for continuity of coverage,                 
  so that individuals who initially satisfied a plan's                         
  preexisting conditional restrictions would not be faced with                 
  meeting those restrictions again if they changed jobs or the                 
  employer changed insurance companies.  Mr. Parsons also                      
  indicated ASCC's support for SB 173's rate limitations,                      
  stability, and predictability.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 196                                                                   
                                                                               
  JAY FRANK, representing STATE FARM and ALLSTATE insurance                    
  companies, testified in support of SB 173.  He said that the                 
  bill was based on model legislation, as adopted by the                       
  National Association of Insurance Commissioners.  He stated                  
  that the bill would not solve all the problems with health                   
  insurance, but attempted to address availability problems                    
  that small employers faced.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 216                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN asked if SB 173 was similar to an "assigned risk"                 
  system.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 224                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. FRANK responded that SB 173 was similar to "assigned                     
  risk" in that an insurance company that provided coverage to                 
  small employers could not refuse to provide coverage to any                  
  group of employees.  He said that SB 173 would work because                  
  every company in the business of writing insurance policies                  
  for small employers would have to play by the same rules.                    
  In the past, he said, companies would exclude high-risk                      
  individuals, or entire groups which contained one or more                    
  high-risk individuals.  He noted that SB 173 was also                        
  similar to "assigned risk" in that coverage would be made                    
  available to everyone.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 246                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN asked if premiums would vary under SB 173's                       
  provisions.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 255                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. FRANK commented that premiums would be set by the                        
  individual insurance companies.  He said that SB 173 would                   
  set up a state authority which would determine baseline                      
  coverages.  Once those coverages were determined, he added,                  
  companies would set rates for the different types of                         
  coverage.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 269                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN asked if insurance companies could charge                         
  different premium rates, and then employers could choose                     
  with which insurance company to do business.                                 
                                                                               
  MR. FRANK said that Rep. Green was correct.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 281                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT asked if the state authority would establish a                     
  base rate, which could then be adjusted according to                         
  preexisting conditions or other criteria.  He asked if the                   
  rates would be established according to type of business, or                 
  if not, according to what criteria.                                          
                                                                               
  MR. FRANK stated that rates would vary according to the type                 
  of business requesting coverage.                                             
                                                                               
  Number 304                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT asked if individuals within the same occupation                    
  would be rated differently, or if they would all be assessed                 
  the same premium.                                                            
                                                                               
  MR. FRANK replied that individuals working in the same                       
  occupation might be rated differently, due to preexisting                    
  medical conditions.  Similarly, he said, persons with the                    
  same preexisting medical conditions, but working in                          
  different occupations, would be rated differently.                           
                                                                               
  Number 329                                                                   
                                                                               
  GORDON EVANS, representing the HEALTH INSURANCE ASSOCIATION                  
  OF AMERICA, said that no base rate would be set.  The state                  
  authority would establish "basic" and "standard" plans and                   
  outline what would be covered under each of those plans.                     
  Insurance companies would then set rates for each type of                    
  plan, he added.  Employers could then choose to do business                  
  with any insurance company which offered the coverage.  He                   
  noted that premiums for all individuals within an employer's                 
  group would be the same.                                                     
                                                                               
  MR. EVANS commented that if there was a high-risk individual                 
  within a group, the insurance company would decide whether                   
  it was going to make use of the reinsurance provisions of SB
  173.  He said that if a primary insurer, one that wrote                      
  policies, felt that it could not insure a high-risk                          
  individual using its own reserves, then that individual                      
  could be reinsured, after the primary insurer paid the first                 
  $5,000 in claims.  He noted that SB 173 allowed insurance                    
  companies to accept a greater variety of risks.                              
                                                                               
  MR. EVANS said that SB 173 would have no fiscal impact on                    
  the state budget and would "sunset" after five years, unless                 
  the legislature chose to renew the program.  He stated that                  
  a similar bill had nearly passed the legislature last year.                  
  Twenty-four other states had already enacted laws like SB
  173, he said.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 395                                                                   
                                                                               
  RESA JERREL, representing the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF                         
  INDEPENDENT BUSINESS (NFIB), testified in support of SB 173                  
  and called the members' attention to a written position                      
  paper which was included in their bill packets.                              
                                                                               
  Number 406                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND indicated his support for SB 173.  He asked                    
  Ms. Jerrel if she thought that the bill would encourage more                 
  small businesses to offer health insurance to their                          
  employees.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 415                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. JERREL commented that two years ago she had put a                        
  question on the NFIB ballot regarding whether the state                      
  should institute an insurance pooling plan.  She stated that                 
  76% of respondents indicated their support for such a                        
  program.  Of those 76%, she added, 50% said that they would                  
  participate in such a program.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 425                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND repeated his question regarding whether or not                 
  SB 173 would encourage small employers to provide health                     
  insurance coverage to their employees.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 431                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. JERREL replied that she thought that SB 173 would                        
  encourage small employers to provide coverage to their                       
  employees.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 440                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMMISSIONER PAUL FUHS, from the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND                  
  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED), indicated the department's                      
  strong support for SB 173, saying that it would help both                    
  employees and small business owners.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 449                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT asked Comm. Fuhs how many small businesses in                      
  Alaska employed full-time employees, as defined in SB 173.                   
                                                                               
  Number 454                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS replied that he did not know the answer to Rep.                   
  Kott's question.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 457                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN asked Comm. Fuhs if SB 173 would have any effect                  
  on the percentage of the health insurance premium paid by                    
  the employer versus the percentage paid by the employee.                     
                                                                               
  Number 463                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS responded that the bill would have no effect on                   
  who paid the premiums.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 470                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. BETTYE DAVIS, SPONSOR OF THE HOUSE COMPANION BILL TO                    
  SB 173 (HB 12), was invited to address the committee.  She                   
  stated that she would be glad to defer the opportunity to                    
  testify, so long as the committee was willing to move SB 173                 
  out of committee.                                                            
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER declared that Rep. Davis had a deal.                         
                                                                               
  Number 498                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES made a motion to move CSSB 173(FIN) out of                        
  committee with individual recommendations, and a zero fiscal                 
  note.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 503                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT indicated his support for SB 173.  He said that,                   
  after a trial period, the program should be reevaluated and                  
  perhaps broadened.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 513                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES stated that, as an accountant and tax preparer                    
  for small businesses and a small business owner herself, she                 
  supported the bill.                                                          
                                                                               
  There being no objection to moving SB 173 out of committee,                  
  it was so ordered.                                                           
  SB 149  REVISION OF BANKING CODE                                             
                                                                               
  Number 528                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would now take                  
  up SB 149, which it had already heard and passed out of                      
  committee, but which had been returned to the Judiciary                      
  Committee for the consideration of one or two amendments.                    
  He called the committee members' attention to a proposed                     
  amendment (version K.1) dated April 22, 1993, contained in                   
  their bill packets.  He said that the amendment would insert                 
  a new subsection on page 24 following line 27.  He read the                  
  proposed amendment for the benefit of those on the                           
  teleconference network.  The effect of the amendment would                   
  be to prohibit state banks from purchasing, establishing, or                 
  operating a subsidiary that engaged in the business of                       
  insurance or real estate brokerage.  He said that the                        
  committee would also be considering another proposed                         
  amendment, which would "grandfather" in state banks with                     
  subsidiaries already in the insurance or real estate                         
  brokerage business.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 563                                                                   
                                                                               
  WILLIS KIRKPATRICK, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF BANKING,                     
  SECURITIES, AND CORPORATIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                   
  AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED), indicated his support for                   
  the first amendment.  He said that when SB 149 was before                    
  the House Labor and Commerce Committee, he had stated that                   
  federal law would prohibit banks from engaging in insurance                  
  activities unless states specifically allowed it.  He                        
  indicated that he had misspoken.  He noted that all of                       
  Alaska's banks except for one were owned by bank holding                     
  companies, which were subject to federal regulation.  He                     
  said that these federal regulations prohibited banks from                    
  engaging in insurance activities.                                            
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK mentioned a Delaware court case in which the                 
  federal government's prohibition against a bank subsidiary                   
  engaging in the insurance business had been upheld.  He                      
  commented that the matter was now before the U.S. Supreme                    
  Court.  He said that the one Alaska bank which was not part                  
  of a bank holding company was a "fed member bank," and thus                  
  was also prohibited by the federal government from engaging                  
  in insurance activities.                                                     
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK noted that there was a bank, owned by a bank                 
  holding company, in an Alaskan community of less than 9,000                  
  people, which, through a series of events, that bank had a                   
  presently unauthorized title insurance company.  He stated                   
  that the title insurance company was acquired at a time when                 
  it was closing down, which would have been a burden on the                   
  community.  The bank formed its own bank holding company to                  
  purchase the title insurance agency, he added.  However, the                 
  federal government regulators asserted that the bank holding                 
  company could not own a private insurance company.                           
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK stated that in the five or six years that                    
  the bank had run the title insurance company, he had not                     
  received a single complaint.  He noted that the title                        
  insurance company did business on a couple of islands where                  
  the community's other title company did not.  He expressed                   
  support for "grandfathering" this bank's title insurance                     
  subsidiary.  He urged the committee to amend the bill so as                  
  to specifically allow for this one situation.                                
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if the bank to which Mr. Kirkpatrick was                    
  referring was the only one in Alaska which had a title                       
  insurance subsidiary.                                                        
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK said that Rep. James was correct.  It was                    
  the only state-chartered financial institution which had a                   
  title insurance subsidiary.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 652                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if the title insurance company made a                       
  profit.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 655                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK responded that he could not address the                      
  profitability of the subsidiary, but said that he was able                   
  to attest that the title company was not a financial drain                   
  on the bank.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 662                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Kirkpatrick to clarify his response.                 
                                                                               
  Number 665                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK reiterated his previous comment.                             
                                                                               
  Number 669                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked what was wrong with a bank having a                      
  title insurance subsidiary.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 671                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK replied that there was concern that one                      
  industry might require a type of service from another                        
  industry which the first industry controlled.  For example,                  
  if a bank made a mortgage loan, title insurance would be                     
  required before the loan could be sold.  He said that it was                 
  possible that a bank would refuse someone a loan unless that                 
  person agreed to purchase the requisite title insurance from                 
  the bank.  He stated that regulations needed to be set up to                 
  protect customers from this type of situation.  He commented                 
  that this was not a problem with the bank in question.                       
                                                                               
  Number 694                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND stated that he had not been present when SB
  149 was last before the committee.  He asked Mr. Kirkpatrick                 
  to explain the intent of the amendment.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 703                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment before the                         
  committee would preclude insurance and real estate brokerage                 
  businesses from being owned by banks.  He said that the                      
  theory behind this prohibition was that banks would have the                 
  appearance of a conflict of interest and the ability to                      
  unfairly compete with non-banks which owned those types of                   
  businesses.                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that title insurance companies had to                  
  send copies of policies to banks issuing loans.  If the bank                 
  held a title insurance company of its own, then the banks                    
  would receive valuable information from their competitors                    
  and could take advantage of the situation, he said.                          
                                                                               
  Number 727                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND commented that, on its face, the amendment                     
  appeared to discourage competition.  But, he said, the                       
  Chairman's explanation indicated that it would actually                      
  encourage competition.  He asked Mr. Kirkpatrick to give his                 
  position on the amendment.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 731                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK indicated his support for the amendment.                     
                                                                               
  Number 739                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if Mr. Kirkpatrick could address the                     
  issue of the undue concentration of commerce.                                
                                                                               
  Number 748                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he would accept testimony from                   
  the teleconference sites first.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 751                                                                   
                                                                               
  JACK BARRY testified via teleconference from Ketchikan that                  
  he had no problem with Mr. Kirkpatrick's suggested                           
  amendment.  He indicated his support for separating the                      
  banking industry from the insurance industry.                                
                                                                               
  Number 762                                                                   
                                                                               
  ARNE IVERSEN, testifying via teleconference from Ketchikan,                  
  echoed the comments of Mr. Barry.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 765                                                                   
                                                                               
  JAMES BARRY, testifying via teleconference from Ketchikan,                   
  said that he agreed that the insurance industry and the                      
  banking industry should be kept separate.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 769                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked those testifying from Ketchikan if                     
  they had a position on Mr. Kirkpatrick's suggested                           
  amendment, which would "grandfather" in the Ketchikan bank                   
  which held a title insurance subsidiary.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 780                                                                   
                                                                               
  JACK DAVIES, testifying via teleconference from Ketchikan,                   
  said that he wholeheartedly supported both amendments.                       
                                                                               
  Number 787                                                                   
                                                                               
  JIM SARVELA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF                   
  FIRST BANK IN KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference from                   
  Ketchikan and deferred to Bill Moran, president of the bank.                 
                                                                               
  Number 789                                                                   
                                                                               
  BILL MORAN, PRESIDENT OF FIRST BANK IN KETCHIKAN, testifying                 
  via teleconference from Ketchikan, indicated his support for                 
  the amendment and said that he would answer questions about                  
  his bank's activities, as well as those of the title                         
  insurance company.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 802                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked Mr. Moran if there was only one bank in                     
  Ketchikan.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 805                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN replied that there were many banks in Ketchikan.                   
                                                                               
  Number 808                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if the bank had made any effort to sell the                 
  title insurance company.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 811                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN responded that the bank had not done so.                           
                                                                               
  Number 812                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if First Bank ever intended to sell the                     
  title insurance company.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 813                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN replied that the bank did not, at present, intend                  
  to sell the title insurance company.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 814                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked Mr. Moran if the title insurance company                    
  was a profitable business.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 818                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN commented that, while the title insurance company                  
  was basically profitable, it was not a big contributor to                    
  the bank's overall profit picture.  He noted that the                        
  company's returns were highly volatile, depending on the                     
  amount of real estate activity.  He said that the bank had                   
  been in the title insurance business for nine years, and                     
  that the company had been profitable every year.                             
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN explained how First Bank had gotten into the title                 
  insurance business in the first place.  He said that his                     
  bank had offices in many small communities in Southeast                      
  Alaska.  He noted that First Bank used to have a continuing                  
  problem with obtaining title insurance for property on                       
  Prince of Wales Island, as well as in Petersburg and                         
  Wrangell.                                                                    
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-71, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN commented that First Bank had presented the idea                   
  of acquiring the title insurance company to the Federal                      
  Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Division of                     
  Banking, Securities and Corporations as a kindred service,                   
  closely associated with the extension of credit.  He said                    
  that the title insurance company was acquired in response to                 
  a specific need and for the convenience of the bank's                        
  customers.                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN said that First Bank was sensitive to the concern                  
  that the bank might tie loan and title service together.  He                 
  said that such a practice was illegal.  He noted that the                    
  title insurance agency was kept separate from the bank.                      
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if, at the time that First Bank acquired                    
  the title insurance company, there was no other title                        
  insurance company operating in Ketchikan.                                    
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN replied that there was another title insurance                     
  agency in Ketchikan at that time, but it did not service                     
  Wrangell, Petersburg, or communities on Prince of Wales                      
  Island to the necessary extent.                                              
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if the other title insurance agency now                     
  served those areas to a greater extent.                                      
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN said that he believed that the other title                         
  insurance agency served Wrangell; and he was not sure if the                 
  agency served Petersburg.  He stated that he was almost                      
  certain that the agency wrote policies on Prince of Wales                    
  Island.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 101                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked Mr. Moran what First Bank would do if SB
  149 were not amended so as to "grandfather" in its ownership                 
  of the title insurance company.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 106                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN commented that First Bank was a state-chartered                    
  bank.  In the early 1980s, he said, the bank switched from a                 
  national charter to a state charter in order to take                         
  advantage of certain benefits relating to lending limits and                 
  the investment of reserves.  Since that time, he added,                      
  there had been many changes made to the national banking                     
  laws, and the original benefits of a state charter had                       
  disappeared to a large extent.                                               
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN indicated his understanding that one reason behind                 
  the state's current recodification was a need to bring the                   
  state banks back to parity with the national banks.                          
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES repeated her question regarding what First Bank                   
  would do if its situation was not "grandfathered" in.                        
                                                                               
  MR. MORAN replied that he was not sure what the bank would                   
  do.  He said that, regarding the entire recodification, the                  
  legislature should consider that it was neither difficult                    
  nor expensive for a bank to change its charter from state to                 
  national, or vice versa.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 175                                                                   
                                                                               
  GREG ERKINS, testifying via teleconference from Anchorage,                   
  spoke on behalf of the ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.  He                   
  said that he supported the amendment to limit banks'                         
  ownership of insurance or real estate businesses, but did                    
  not support "grandfathering" in First Bank, as he said that                  
  the bank engaged in illegal practices.  He noted that a real                 
  estate agent in Cordova used a title insurance company in                    
  Anchorage, as none existed in Cordova.  That did not present                 
  much of a problem at all, he said.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 249                                                                   
                                                                               
  GARY ROTH, PRESIDENT OF DENALI STATE BANK, testified via                     
  teleconference from Fairbanks.  He urged the committee to                    
  pass SB 149, and said that he supported both the amendment                   
  prohibiting banks from entering the insurance or real estate                 
  brokerage business and the amendment "grandfathering" in                     
  First Bank's ownership of its title insurance company.                       
                                                                               
  Number 265                                                                   
                                                                               
  GINA MCBRIDE testified via teleconference from Anchorage.                    
  She said that she supported the amendment which prohibited                   
  banks from engaging in insurance or real estate brokerage                    
  activities.  She said that the "grandfather" clause was a                    
  bad idea.  She questioned whether the amendment would affect                 
  more banks than just the one bank in Ketchikan.  She noted                   
  that safeguards that were supposed to prevent industry tie-                  
  ins had often not worked in the past.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 304                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified that there were two amendments                     
  before the committee.  Both would prohibit banks from                        
  engaging in the real estate brokerage or insurance                           
  industries.  The second one, however, also included a                        
  "grandfather" clause for First Bank.  He said that it might                  
  be best to address the second amendment first, as if it was                  
  adopted, and there would be no need to address the other                     
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 310                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN offered the second amendment.                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for the purposes of discussion.                     
                                                                               
  Number 312                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON spoke in favor of the amendment.  He noted                     
  that, as an island-dweller, he was aware of the problems of                  
  doing business in an isolated location.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 327                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked the Chairman to address the alleged                      
  illegality of First Bank's operation.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 331                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that, in his assessment, First                     
  Bank's situation was at worst illegal and at best not                        
  formally or properly authorized.  He said that he did not                    
  support the amendment for two reasons:  (1) the legislature                  
  might be "grandfathering" in an illegal activity; and (2)                    
  the amendment might affect more banks than just First Bank                   
  in Ketchikan.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 346                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked for some background on how First Bank                    
  could conduct a potentially illegal operation for nine                       
  years, given that banks were periodically reviewed.                          
                                                                               
  Number 356                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK responded that the Alaska Banking Code, as                   
  currently written, was not terribly clear.  Over the years,                  
  he said, examiners had questioned whether First Bank's                       
  investment was permissible.  He noted that there was some                    
  subjectivity involved in the determination of whether title                  
  insurance and banks were of a "kindred kind."  He added that                 
  there was no statute which said that a title insurance                       
  business was an illegal business for a bank.  Therefore, he                  
  said, there were questions about whether or not First Bank's                 
  title insurance company was illegal.  Senate Bill 149                        
  included a more precise subsidiary provision, he said.  He                   
  also commented that there was no current Attorney General's                  
  opinion on the issue.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 398                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN asked Mr. Kirkpatrick if he knew of any other                     
  banks which would be affected by the proposed "grandfather"                  
  provision.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 402                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK testified that there were no other state-                    
  chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions that                    
  had subsidiaries that were title insurance companies.                        
                                                                               
  Number 407                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES commented that, since there was another title                     
  insurance company operating in Ketchikan, she would probably                 
  not support the "grandfather" provision.  She said that she                  
  understood what it was like to do business on islands and in                 
  small communities in Alaska, and was willing to make                         
  provisions for the peculiarities of doing so.  She expressed                 
  her opinion that title insurance companies should not be in                  
  the lending business, nor should banks be in the title                       
  insurance business.  She added that since there was already                  
  a title insurance agency in Ketchikan that could be                          
  providing the same service that the bank's title insurance                   
  company did, she felt that the bank's subsidiary was a                       
  conflict of interest.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 427                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON noted that when only one title insurance                       
  company was located in an isolated community, the rates were                 
  not subject to competition and were often very high.                         
                                                                               
  Number 431                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES replied that title insurance rates in the state                   
  were uniform and set by law.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 436                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS noted that the amendment would only allow for                  
  existing situations to continue; it would not allow for                      
  other banks to get into the insurance or real estate                         
  brokerage business in the future.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 445                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed that the amendment would                              
  "grandfather" in one existing situation, but would preclude                  
  other banks from getting into the insurance or real estate                   
  brokerage business.                                                          
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND asked what current law said about banks                        
  getting into the insurance or real estate brokerage                          
  business.                                                                    
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that, if SB 149 passed, a bank                     
  could not enter the insurance business.  Under current state                 
  law, he added, a bank was not precluded from doing so.                       
  However, federal regulations prohibited such activity                        
  without specific statutory authority from the state or many                  
  "hoops" at the federal level.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 464                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND questioned why, if the Division of Banking,                    
  Securities, and Corporations supported the proposed                          
  amendment, it was not included in SB 149 in the first place.                 
                                                                               
  Number 468                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK stated that the original SB 149 would have                   
  allowed banks to enter the insurance or real estate                          
  brokerage business.  The amendment would remove that                         
  authority.  He said that his division had seen no specific                   
  harm resulting from First Bank's operation; the amendment                    
  would clear up a question regarding the legality of First                    
  Bank's practices.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 479                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND asked if SB 149's sponsor supported the                        
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 483                                                                   
                                                                               
  JOSH FINK, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO SEN. TIM KELLY, PRIME SPONSOR                 
  OF SB 149, indicated that the sponsor had no position on the                 
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 493                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Kirkpatrick to address where                         
  statewide uniform title insurance rates could be found in                    
  the Alaska Statutes.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 498                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK replied that he did not regulate insurance                   
  companies and could not answer Rep. Davidson's question.                     
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if there was a state law regarding                       
  uniform title insurance rates.                                               
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK responded that he did not know the answer to                 
  Rep. Davidson's question.                                                    
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked, if title insurance rates were uniform,                  
  why the "grandfather" provision created a competition                        
  problem.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 515                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the issue was that there was                     
  perceived coercion by the bank for its customers to buy the                  
  bank's title insurance.                                                      
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS expressed her opinion that it was not right to                 
  pass legislation which pertained specifically to one entity.                 
  She asked if there were any statutes which prohibited the                    
  legislature from doing that.                                                 
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON expressed his opinion that the committee's                     
  recent action on SB 178 indicated that the legislature did                   
  pass bills which affected only one entity.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 540                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that SB 178 would apply to any                        
  lawsuit filed by anyone.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 547                                                                   
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY                     
  COMMITTEE, noted that a provision in the state constitution                  
  prohibited special interest legislation, or legislation                      
  affecting one party.  She said that there clearly had been                   
  many bills passed by the legislature over the years which                    
  only affected one entity, however.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 558                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked what the perceived problem was in                        
  "grandfathering" in the First Bank operation in Ketchikan.                   
                                                                               
  Number 561                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that if the committee's philosophy                 
  was that tie-ins between the banking industry and the                        
  insurance industry were not a good idea due to perceived and                 
  real conflicts of interest, then the harm was that (1) there                 
  was another title insurance company in Ketchikan that could                  
  provide the necessary services to the public; and (2) if                     
  another title insurance company wanted to enter and compete                  
  in the Ketchikan market, it would face the only city in                      
  Alaska where a bank was allowed to own a title company.                      
                                                                               
  Number 569                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if the other title insurance company in                  
  Ketchikan had complained about the bank-owned title                          
  insurance company.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 572                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KIRKPATRICK replied that the other title insurance                       
  company had not submitted a complaint about the bank-owned                   
  title insurance company.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 577                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN asked if it would constitute a "taking" if the                    
  legislature were to pass SB 149 without the amendment under                  
  consideration, given that First Bank might not have broken                   
  any laws.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 582                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that it was not clear whether First                   
  Bank had broken any laws by acquiring the title insurance                    
  company.  He said that he could not answer Rep. Green's                      
  question.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 586                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES noted that when title insurance companies insured                 
  titles, they listed all of the "clouds" and all of the                       
  conditions of record pertaining to a piece of property.                      
  Some title insurance companies, in competition with other                    
  title insurance companies, would insure "around" certain                     
  conditions, while other companies would not.                                 
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES expressed her opinion that there was a definite                   
  conflict of interest between title insurance companies and                   
  mortgagors.  Because First Bank's title insurance company                    
  was not the only one in Ketchikan, she said, she would not                   
  support the proposed "grandfather" provision.                                
                                                                               
  Number 612                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS commented that she would abide by the                          
  constitution's prohibition against special acts, when a                      
  general act could be made applicable.                                        
                                                                               
  Number 621                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND noted that if Rep. James' intention was to                     
  enhance competition, then her actions ran counter to that                    
  intention.                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that the committee had a motion to                 
  adopt what would now be designated as Amendment 1, which                     
  included the "grandfather" provision.  Objection had been                    
  heard.                                                                       
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to divide the question.                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that if Amendment 1 passed, then the                  
  committee was done with the issue.  If the amendment did not                 
  pass, then the committee would turn to Amendment 2, which                    
  included part of Amendment 1.                                                
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS withdrew her motion.                                           
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 1.  Reps. Nordlund,                  
  Davidson, Green and Kott voted "yea."  Reps. Phillips,                       
  James, and Porter voted "nay."  And so, Amendment 1 was                      
  adopted.                                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that, because Amendment 1 had                      
  passed, there was no need to consider Amendment 2.                           
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to move SB 149, as amended, out                  
  of committee with individual recommendations.  There being                   
  no objection, it was so ordered.                                             
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the teleconference had come                   
  to an end.  He said that the committee would now take up SB
  76.                                                                          
  SB 76 CHARITABLE GAMING RESTRICTIONS                                         
                                                                               
  Number 675                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to move SB 76 out of committee,                  
  with individual recommendations.                                             
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND objected.                                                      
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS withdrew her motion so that testimony could be                 
  heard from witnesses.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 708                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. CHIP THOMA commented that he had followed the issue of                   
  charitable gaming for the past several years, and had                        
  testified on SB 76 when it was in the Senate.  He spoke in                   
  support of an amendment offered by Senator Jay Kerttula,                     
  which would eliminate pull-tab gambling in the state.  He                    
  expressed his opinion that promoting charities through                       
  nearly-exclusive use of pull-tabs was not good or prudent                    
  state policy.  He stated that the concept of and intent                      
  behind SB 76 were fatally flawed, because charitable                         
  organizations were being forced to rely very heavily on                      
  gaming as a revenue source.                                                  
                                                                               
  MR. THOMA said that 80% of the money raised by charitable                    
  gaming was from pull-tab sales.  He noted that charitable                    
  gaming raised a lot of money for charities, but with                         
  questionable consequences.  He stated that the purpose of                    
  SB 76 was supposedly to crack down on questionable                           
  activities by those involved in charitable gaming.  He                       
  expressed his opinion that the amount of money said to go to                 
  political candidates was greatly exaggerated.                                
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-72, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. THOMA asserted that SB 76 was an attempt by Mr. Mitch                    
  Gravo, a lobbyist representing the Charitable Gambling                       
  Association of Alaska, to quash competition.  He said that                   
  he resented the use of legislation for such purposes.  He                    
  commented that an important issue which was not addressed by                 
  SB 76 was the sale of pull-tabs in establishments which sold                 
  alcohol.  He expressed his opinion that linking liquor                       
  establishments with charitable gaming was bad state policy.                  
                                                                               
  MR. THOMA commented that most charities operating in Alaska                  
  served clients who had been affected by alcohol.  The state,                 
  he said, was forever linking the sale of pull-tabs to                        
  alcohol establishments.  He noted that he did not consider                   
  the relatively small amount of charitable gaming proceeds                    
  which went to political candidates to be a problem.  He said                 
  that he had recently learned that the Alaska Environmental                   
  Lobby (AEL) would, under SB 76's provisions, no longer be                    
  allowed to use its raffle proceeds to pay the salary of its                  
  lobbyist.  He called that "outrageous."  He expressed his                    
  opinion that SB 76 attempted to eliminate a fund raising                     
  source for Democrats.  He noted that the Democrats did not                   
  rely on $1,000 contributors, as did the Republicans.                         
                                                                               
  MR. THOMA stated that the bill gave short shrift to the                      
  concept of multiple beneficiaries.  He said that SB 76                       
  contained many loopholes, and had received little scrutiny                   
  from legislative committees.  He predicted that SB 76 would                  
  expand gambling in the state, and reiterated his concern                     
  that linking gambling and alcohol was wrong.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 137                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS noted that he had distributed to the committee                    
  additional information which had been requested by Rep.                      
  Davidson at the previous work session on SB 76.  He said                     
  that charitable gaming was not a partisan issue, as both                     
  Republicans and Democrats received proceeds from charitable                  
  gaming.  He added that some operators ran pull-tab games                     
  almost solely for the benefit of political candidates.  In                   
  response to Mr. Thoma's allegation that SB 76 was a war                      
  between two operators, he said that the bill would not                       
  affect either operator.  He said that, in addition to                        
  bringing operations currently in bars under state                            
  regulation, SB 76 would give municipalities the option to                    
  prohibit vendors from operating in their communities.                        
                                                                               
  Number 203                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON noted that Kodiak had already outlawed                         
  operators.  He asked Comm. Fuhs if SB 76 would increase                      
  economic opportunities for the liquor industry.  He asked if                 
  the bill would increase the value of a bar license.                          
                                                                               
  Number 225                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS replied that he did not know if the bill would                    
  increase the value of a bar license.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 230                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if SB 76's allowance that a bar owner                    
  could become a pull-tab vendor would not increase the                        
  revenue taken in by the bar.                                                 
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS responded that it would depend on the bar owner's                 
  operating expenses, and whether or not a bar owner chose to                  
  sell pull-tabs in the first place.  He noted that some bar                   
  owners did not feel that pull-tabs fit in with the bar's                     
  image.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 243                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if "upscale" bars generally did not sell                 
  pull-tabs.                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS said, in general, that was true.                                  
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if DCED had conducted a zip code                         
  analysis of where pull-tab revenues came from.                               
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS replied that no such analysis had been done.                      
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked what result the commissioner would                       
  predict from such an analysis.                                               
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS expressed his opinion that such an analysis would                 
  indicate that gambling revenues were received from areas                     
  throughout the state.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 258                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON stated his belief that SB 76 would increase                    
  the mixing of alcohol and gambling.  He said that if upscale                 
  bars, in general, would not sell pull-tabs, that led him to                  
  believe that people who could afford to buy pull-tabs would                  
  not do so.  Therefore, the funding of non-profit                             
  organizations would primarily be done by the poor.  He said                  
  that, despite the commissioner's opinion that SB 76 would                    
  not expand gambling, there was a real possibility that the                   
  bill would expand the availability of pull-tabs.                             
                                                                               
  Number 296                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked if a bar owner, when selling his or her                  
  bar, could sell a pull-tab license along with it.                            
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS replied that the pull-tab permit would not be                     
  transferred along with the facility.                                         
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Comm. Fuhs to compare the                              
  proliferation of gambling, in the event that SB 76 passed                    
  and in the event that the bill failed.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 331                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS said that it was difficult to speculate.  He                      
  predicted that passage of SB 76 would result in the                          
  "redistribution" of gaming revenues, but not necessarily an                  
  expansion of gaming activities.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 347                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS noted that there was nothing in current law                    
  that would prohibit the expansion of pull-tab activity in                    
  the state.                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS stated that Rep. Phillips was correct.  He added                  
  that any bar in Alaska could sell pull-tabs under current                    
  law if it so desired.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 358                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that SB 76 would make it more                          
  difficult for bar owners to sell pull-tabs, as they would                    
  have to give more of the proceeds to the permittee.                          
                                                                               
  Number 362                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS expressed her opinion that SB 76 did not make                  
  the selling of pull-tabs easier or more difficult for bar                    
  owners.  What the bill did, she said, was to change the                      
  percentage of proceeds which the permittees received.                        
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS stated that bar owners would be required to pay                   
  50% of the "ideal net" from each pull-tab game series, up-                   
  front, to the permittee.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 387                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. John Hansen to address why some                      
  pull-tab sellers gave 30% of proceeds to permittees, while                   
  others were required to give 50% of proceeds to the                          
  permittees.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 396                                                                   
                                                                               
  JOHN HANSEN, GAMING MANAGER FROM THE DCED, stated that                       
  licensed operators would be required to give permittees 30%                  
  of proceeds from pull-tab sales.  That person would not be                   
  required to pay for the pull-tabs upon delivery, he said,                    
  and would perform services for permittees which the                          
  permittees did not choose to do themselves.  Under SB 76,                    
  permittees would still receive monthly checks from                           
  operators, but the amount of the checks would double.                        
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN explained that if a permittee chose to do                         
  business with a vendor, the permittee would purchase pull-                   
  tabs and deliver them to the vendor.  Unlike doing business                  
  with an operator, permittees contracting with vendors would                  
  be required to do their own accounting and financial                         
  reporting.  Although permittees contracting with vendors                     
  received a higher rate of return, he noted, the permittee                    
  still bore the burden of doing the paperwork.                                
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON commented that he had spoken with the director                 
  of a non-profit organization in his district and was told                    
  that in the last eight years a state regulator had only come                 
  by once to check on the organization's gaming permit.  He                    
  asked Mr. Hansen how his office would increase oversight of                  
  charitable gaming.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 435                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN noted that the percentages built into SB 76 did                   
  not exist in current law.  He said that currently                            
  organizations which did not choose to use the services of an                 
  operator had no expense limitations.  Therefore, many groups                 
  did millions of dollars worth of gaming, yet ended up with                   
  no net proceeds.  The fixed percentages in SB 76 would help                  
  the state to ensure compliance simply by performing desk                     
  audits.  He noted that field inspections would still be                      
  conducted.  He expressed his opinion that, under current                     
  law, the state enjoyed substantial compliance with its                       
  licensing requirements.                                                      
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Hansen why he believed this to be                    
  true.                                                                        
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN cited the number of inspections conducted.  He                    
  said that the state lacked auditing powers.  He said that SB
  76 would enable the state to more easily accomplish audits,                  
  due to the built-in percentages.                                             
                                                                               
  Number 473                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN stated that in 1992, the state issued permits to                  
  1,003 permittees.  Some permittees, he noted, held more than                 
  one permit.  He said 1,320 permits were issued exclusively                   
  for pull-tab activity.  He noted that the state had only                     
  four gaming investigators.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 491                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if, under SB 76, a permittee could still                 
  conduct a raffle and donate proceeds from that raffle to a                   
  political candidate.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 498                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN said that Rep. Davidson was correct, as long as                   
  the candidate was affiliated with a political organization.                  
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if a permittee could hold a raffle and                   
  donate proceeds directly to a candidate, instead of to the                   
  candidate through his or her political party, under SB 76's                  
  provisions.                                                                  
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN stated that the permittee could contribute raffle                 
  proceeds either to the party or to the candidate's                           
  organization, if that organization was affiliated with a                     
  political party.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 510                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if similar contributions to lobbyists                    
  would be illegal.                                                            
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN said that was correct.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 518                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON expressed his opinion that it was ironic that                  
  a permittee could contribute to a person who was to be                       
  lobbied, but not to a person who did the lobbying.                           
                                                                               
  Number 525                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN noted that federal law and SB 76 both made                        
  distinctions between different types of gaming activities.                   
  He added that the DCED was currently conducting an analysis                  
  of gaming revenues by zip code.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 544                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked why SB 76 contained such an onerous                      
  title.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 548                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS indicated that the title was written by the                       
  Senate.  He suggested that Rep. Phillips ask the bill's                      
  sponsor what her intentions were in writing such a                           
  restrictive title.  He stated that he had heard that the                     
  reason was not to tie the House's hands, but instead to                      
  attempt to "put some kind of sideboards on the thing," to                    
  try to keep it from coming apart.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 564                                                                   
                                                                               
  MARK HIGGINS, representing the ALASKA CHARITABLE GAMES                       
  ASSOCIATION, said that SB 76 would undoubtedly expand                        
  gambling.  He said that Comm. Fuhs' figures regarding how                    
  many bars in Alaska already sold pull-tabs were grossly                      
  exaggerated.  He commented that SB 76 provided a tremendous                  
  economic incentive for bars to get into the pull-tab                         
  business.  He expressed his opinion that the sale of pull-                   
  tabs in a bar would increase the value of that bar, if the                   
  owner decided to sell.                                                       
                                                                               
  MR. HIGGINS noted that SB 76 would delete an existing bond                   
  requirement.  He predicted that the bill would expand gaming                 
  by at least 100%.  He commented that, when the 1988 Gaming                   
  Reform Act was enacted, no one involved envisioned that                      
  stand-alone pull-tab stores would be established.  He noted                  
  that when permittees contracted with vendors, it was true                    
  that the permittee would receive 50% of the "ideal net" up-                  
  front.  What was not being stated, he added, was that the                    
  permittee had to pay for the cost of the pull-tabs, plus                     
  taxes.  That meant that the permittee actually only received                 
  about 35% of the ideal net.                                                  
                                                                               
  MR. HIGGINS expressed his opinion that bar owners serving as                 
  vendors ought to pay permittees more than 50% of the ideal                   
  net, as the vendor's expenses were essentially nothing.  He                  
  distributed a series of graphs to the committee, which he                    
  said were based on state figures.  He said the DCED                          
  contended that, out of the $200 million annually involved in                 
  the charitable gaming industry, only about 8% was going to                   
  charitable organizations.  His graphs demonstrated that                      
  charities actually received about 40% of the "bottom-line                    
  net."  He said that SB 76 would increase, but not double,                    
  the amount of money which went to charities.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 688                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES questioned Mr. Higgins' figures.  She said that                   
  when the state was talking about 15%, that was 15% of the                    
  ideal gross, which was after prizes had been taken out.  It                  
  appeared to her that Mr. Higgins' figures compared total                     
  pull-tab sales to proceeds going to the non-profit                           
  organizations.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 695                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HIGGINS stated that the state's method of portraying                     
  figures created a false impression that there was rampant                    
  abuse in the charitable gaming industry.  In fact, he said,                  
  charitable organizations were currently receiving a return                   
  from 30-40%, which was better than most businesses in Alaska                 
  could report.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 701                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES indicated that Mr. Higgins had missed her point.                  
  She called attention to Mr. Higgins' second graph.                           
                                                                               
  MR. HIGGINS stated that the second graph represented all of                  
  the money left over after prizes had been awarded.  The                      
  percentage of that amount that actually went to the                          
  charities was approximately 40%, he added.  He alleged that                  
  the DCED was misinforming legislators.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 718                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Higgins if he believed that SB 76                  
  would provide more money to charities than did existing law.                 
                                                                               
  MR. HIGGINS replied that the Chairman was correct.                           
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Higgins to explain what, in the                      
  bill, would ensure that charitable organizations received                    
  more money.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 727                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HIGGINS replied that that would occur in situations in                   
  which operators or self-directed charitable organizations                    
  were not currently realizing a 30% return.  He mentioned                     
  that an operator in Anchorage had recently switched from                     
  being an operator to being a multiple-beneficiary operation.                 
  That person was now sub-leasing in the same space which he                   
  had used as an operator, and was charging $176,000 more per                  
  year to permittees in his new role.  The state had                           
  determined that it had no authority to sanction that                         
  activity.  He expressed concerns over placing multiple-                      
  beneficiary permits in statute.                                              
                                                                               
  MR. HIGGINS cited another example, Catholic Bingo in                         
  Fairbanks, an organization that did not meet the 30%                         
  requirement and would therefore be put out of business by                    
  SB 76.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 756                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Higgins what percentage of the                       
  gaming abuse he attributed to pull-tab activity.  He asked                   
  him what the legislature should do to discourage the                         
  proliferation of gambling combined with alcohol.                             
                                                                               
  MR. HIGGINS responded that pull-tab sales made up about 80%                  
  of the charitable gaming revenue in the state.  Regarding                    
  the combination of gambling and alcohol, he expressed his                    
  opinion that it was a judgment call for the legislature.  He                 
  added that there needed to be protections for the players                    
  and the charities.  He stated that two years ago bars were                   
  willing to accept 25% of the ideal net.  In that light, he                   
  questioned why SB 76 was offering the bars 50% of the ideal                  
  net.                                                                         
                                                                               
  MR. HIGGINS stated that control was a key issue.  He stated                  
  that he had complained several weeks ago that SB 76, as then                 
  drafted, would have allowed pull-tab machines to be located                  
  virtually anywhere.  They could have been owned by anyone,                   
  he added, and there would be no human interaction in that                    
  situation.  That situation cried out for abuse, he said.                     
  The bill was eventually changed, he noted.  He said that                     
  many people would attempt to skirt regulation.  He expressed                 
  his opinion that the bill as drafted would expand the                        
  opportunities for abuse.  He predicted that the abuse would                  
  be seen immediately.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 792                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked how players could be better protected.                   
                                                                               
  Number 795                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HIGGINS said that there were tracking mechanisms in                      
  existing law.  He suggested that bars be required to put up                  
  a real property bond, or do something else to make the bars                  
  accountable -- even requiring them to put their liquor                       
  licenses on the line.                                                        
                                                                               
  (Chairman Porter acknowledged the arrival of Rep. Carl                       
  Moses.)                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 809                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked that a representative of the DCED                        
  respond to the statements made by Mr. Higgins.                               
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-72, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS responded to Mr. Higgins' comment regarding the                   
  number of bars in the state which sold pull-tabs by stating                  
  that out of 1,320 permit locations, 527 of those locations                   
  sold alcohol.  He said the DCED had never claimed that 80-                   
  90% of the state's bars sold pull-tabs.  The department had                  
  said that an inventory of bars in Juneau showed that 80-90%                  
  sold pull-tabs.  He defended the DCED's figures.                             
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS said that, regarding figures of overall net                       
  return, the DCED had been very careful to review them in                     
  detail with the committee during the work session the day                    
  before.  He said that he had explained that when a permittee                 
  ran a game him or herself, the return was 45%, but when a                    
  permittee used an operator, the return was 31%.  The reason                  
  for that, he added, was that some operators voluntarily paid                 
  more than 30%.  He commented that one Juneau operator                        
  voluntarily paid 40%.  He also mentioned that SB 76's                        
  prohibition against proceeds going toward campaign                           
  contributions and lobbyists would result in increased                        
  proceeds to true charities.  He estimated that SB 76 would                   
  result in an additional $10 million per year going to                        
  charities.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 050                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND mentioned a statement included in Sen.                         
  Pearce's written sponsor statement which said, "all non-                     
  profits, including political parties and labor                               
  organizations, would still be allowed to . . . use raffles                   
  and other permitted games to earn money which could then be                  
  used for direct contributions to candidates."                                
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS commented that the sponsor's statement was                        
  correct.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 071                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the name of the sponsoring                         
  organization appeared on raffle tickets, so there was no                     
  confusion regarding where the contribution went.                             
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS said that was true.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 076                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND stated that Rep. Davidson had an amendment                     
  which would address the issue.  He said that he saw no                       
  difference between organizations contributing to candidates                  
  and lobbyists.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 085                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS mentioned that political parties had used                      
  raffles to raise money long before pull-tabs came on the                     
  scene in Alaska.  She expressed her opinion that raffles                     
  should be treated differently than pull-tabs.                                
                                                                               
  Number 094                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES agreed that raffles were different than other                     
  types of gambling.  She said that her understanding of SB 76                 
  was that raffles could still be held, but the proceeds could                 
  not be donated to political candidates.                                      
                                                                               
  Other members of the committee corrected her by saying that                  
  the proceeds could not be used for lobbyists.                                
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked if the Homer Ski Club could hold a                       
  raffle and use the proceeds to make a direct contribution to                 
  Rep. Phillips.                                                               
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS said that was correct.                                            
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked Comm. Fuhs to discuss bonding                            
  requirements for bar owners who sold pull-tabs, as well as                   
  revocation of liquor licenses for gaming abuses.                             
                                                                               
  Number 133                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN discussed the sanctions included in SB 76.  He                    
  said that no bond requirement was necessary, as vendors gave                 
  permittees 50% of the ideal net up-front, upon delivery of                   
  the pull-tabs.  Additionally, he said, SB 76 gave the DCED                   
  much greater regulatory authority over charitable gaming.                    
  It gave the commissioner the right to issue an emergency                     
  order to "cease and desist."  It also gave the department                    
  the authority to suspend, revoke, or deny permits for up to                  
  five years.  The sanctions, he added, were linked both to                    
  the permittee and to the vendor or operator.                                 
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked who could initiate those sanctions.  He                  
  asked if a bar patron who felt that he or she had been "had"                 
  could initiate those sanctions.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 164                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN stated that under current law, if a complaint was                 
  filed, the department investigated it, and action might be                   
  taken.                                                                       
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON expressed concern that, because the present                    
  gaming investigators were spread so thin, the only                           
  investigations would center around complaints.  He asked Mr.                 
  Hansen to comment on the 50/50 split if the cost of the                      
  pull-tabs and the tax were to be paid by the bar owner.                      
                                                                               
  Number 182                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN stated that it would be logistically difficult,                   
  as the cost of each game varied; thus the ideal net and the                  
  taxes owed would vary also.                                                  
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked why the permittee could not collect                      
  those amounts at the same time that he or she collected the                  
  50% of the ideal net.                                                        
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN responded that it would be difficult to compute                   
  those figures on the spot.                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS mentioned that the cost of the game was about                     
  10%.  He expressed the department's desire that the                          
  permittee be physically involved in the delivery of the                      
  pull-tabs and the receipt of the check up-front.  He noted                   
  that if anyone was paid to "broker" vendor-permittee                         
  interactions, that would be an illegal expense under SB 76.                  
                                                                               
  Number 212                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN commented that current law alluded to certain                     
  prohibitions for persons with criminal records, but did not                  
  specifically define them.  He said SB 76, in contrast, set                   
  out specifically who was prohibited from doing what.                         
                                                                               
  Number 228                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON noted that that had nothing to do with a                       
  person who saw an opportunity to broker a situation.  He                     
  asked how the brokerage situation could be controlled.                       
                                                                               
  Number 243                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS said that when a pull-tab game was delivered to a                 
  vendor, the game was registered with the DCED.  The vendor                   
  and the permittee were required to show the DCED what each                   
  did with their 50%.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 250                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN stated that SB 76 would require that a permittee                  
  receive 50% of the ideal net and deposit the check in the                    
  permittee's checking account.  Once the money was in the                     
  checking account, he added, the DCED had a "hook" to monitor                 
  compliance.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 255                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS commented that, although there were some                          
  "sensational" aspects of SB 76, the most important parts of                  
  it from the regulators' standpoint were the "nuts and bolts"                 
  requirements which were being placed on the charitable                       
  gaming industry.  He said that the bill gave the DCED very                   
  clear methods for tracking gaming activity, which would save                 
  personnel time.                                                              
                                                                               
  Number 264                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked why SB 76 did not include a requirement                  
  that pull-tabs be manufactured in Alaska.  She said that it                  
  could spawn a new industry in the state.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 275                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN replied that there were only ten pull-tab                         
  manufacturers in the country.  He noted that the manufacture                 
  of pull-tabs required a tremendous printing press, and was                   
  often done during the daytime by companies which printed                     
  newspapers at night.  In order for a pull-tab manufacturing                  
  operation to be economically feasible, he said, a huge                       
  volume was required.  He said SB 76 licensed out-of-state                    
  manufacturers which were currently not licensed in Alaska.                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked if a licensing fee was charged.                          
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN stated that the fee was $500 per license per                      
  year.                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 296                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND indicated his understanding that the $500                      
  licensing fee was very low, compared to fees charged by                      
  other states.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 300                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HANSEN responded that the highest fee he had ever heard                  
  of was $2,500.  He said that none of the pull-tab                            
  manufacturers wanted to pay the $500 fee, but did not object                 
  to it.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 319                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS asked that the committee, if it opted to amend                    
  SB 76, submit a resolution allowing the title to be amended                  
  so as to specifically pertain to the amendments made.                        
                                                                               
  Number 338                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES asked if the only way in which to change the                      
  title of SB 76 was to have a concurrent resolution passed by                 
  both the House and the Senate.  Additionally, she asked, if                  
  the committee made an amendment, then would that amendment                   
  be tied to a concurrent resolution that would have to be                     
  passed by both bodies in order to give the committee                         
  permission to change the title?                                              
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS stated that the committee could either make very                  
  specific title amendments or a blanket title amendment.                      
                                                                               
  Number 352                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES commented that the committee needed to determine                  
  whether or not SB 76 should pass this year.                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he would like to see SB 76 pass                  
  this year.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 368                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES agreed with the Chairman, but cautioned that                      
  amending the bill might not allow for its passage this year.                 
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS echoed Rep. James' comments.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 372                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. CARL MOSES, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 168, CHARITABLE GAMING                  
  AMENDMENTS, a companion bill to SB 76, expressed the opinion                 
  that any attempt to amend SB 76 was equivalent to an attempt                 
  to kill it.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 378                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND mentioned that the legislature could choose to                 
  ignore the Uniform Rules.  If SB 76 passed, there was                        
  nothing that the courts could say that would invalidate the                  
  bill on legislative procedural grounds.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 384                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the House had elected not to                     
  violate the Uniform Rules.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 387                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON said that the legislature was not a unicameral                 
  body.  As such, he said, it did not behoove the House to                     
  follow the lead of the Senate in this matter.  He said that                  
  the House was not doing its public duty if it did not do                     
  what it thought was right in creating a good law.                            
                                                                               
  Number 400                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he would consider any                         
  proposed amendments, and that all committee members should                   
  do what they felt was right regarding the amendments.  He                    
  noted that it was important to consider the political                        
  ramifications of amending SB 76.  He expressed his opinion                   
  that SB 76 contained a number of good provisions, and said                   
  that more could probably be added.  But, he said, "at some                   
  point in time, you have to make a decision to stop."  He                     
  said that he felt it was time to stop.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 425                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND stated that, in terms of the House of                          
  Representatives, the review process was starting, not                        
  stopping.  He noted that this was the first public hearing                   
  on SB 76 in the House, and that it was proper for the House                  
  to consider amendments to the bill.  He said that both he                    
  and Rep. Davidson were going to offer amendments, starting                   
  with the most expansive amendments and working toward the                    
  least expansive amendments.                                                  
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND moved Amendment 1, which he said would                         
  prohibit the sale of pull-tabs in the state.                                 
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS objected.                                                      
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND expressed his opinion that a lot of gaming                     
  activity that occurred in the state had some value.  There                   
  was social activity involved in bingo and raffles, he noted.                 
  But, he said that he could not see any redeeming value in                    
  playing pull-tabs.  It was a mindless and non-social                         
  activity, he stated.  Pull-tabs had not existed in Alaska                    
  until quite recently, he added, and charities had been able                  
  to survive quite well before they appeared on the scene.                     
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 1.  Reps. Davidson                   
  and Nordlund voted "yea."  Reps. Phillips, Kott, James, and                  
  Porter voted "nay."  Rep. Green passed.  And so, Amendment 1                 
  failed.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 462                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON offered Amendment 2, which would allow local                   
  communities to prohibit pull-tabs.  He said that the effect                  
  of the amendment would be to save what little cash was left                  
  in rural areas of the state.  He expressed his belief that                   
  rural areas supported a disproportionate share of gaming in                  
  Alaska.  He moved the amendment.                                             
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS objected.                                                      
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Comm. Fuhs to discuss how Amendment 2                  
  related to local option provisions already in the bill.                      
                                                                               
  Number 480                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS stated that local option provisions in SB 76                      
  would allow local communities to eliminate operators or                      
  vendors.  But, he said, permittees would still be able to                    
  run pull-tab games on their own.  Amendment 2 would allow                    
  local communities to also prevent permittees from running                    
  their own pull-tab games, he said.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 489                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON asked Comm. Fuhs to offer his opinion of the                   
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 503                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS stated that there were potential legal problems                   
  with the amendment's definition of "community."  He said                     
  that the bill's current local option provisions pertained to                 
  "municipalities."                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 512                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON requested a legal opinion on that issue.                       
                                                                               
  Number 517                                                                   
                                                                               
  JERRY LUCKHAUPT, an ATTORNEY from the LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS                    
  AGENCY'S DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, stated that Amendment 2                 
  tracked local option language in the Alcoholic Beverage                      
  Control (ABC) statutes, which the Supreme Court had recently                 
  found to be constitutional.  The amendment, he said, allowed                 
  municipalities and unincorporated communities to vote to ban                 
  pull-tabs within their boundaries.  He said that it did not                  
  give IRA Councils or village corporations the authority to                   
  make a decision to ban pull-tabs.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 542                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Luckhaupt if he had drafted the                      
  Senate Finance Committee's substitute for SB 76.                             
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT replied that he had done so.                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked if language on page 7, Section 11, of                    
  the bill already accomplished what Amendment 2 was seeking                   
  to do.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 548                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that the language to which Rep.                      
  Phillips was referring was part of what the amendment sought                 
  to accomplish.  The amendment, he said, went further to                      
  include unincorporated communities.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 554                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON urged the members to give serious                              
  consideration to the amendment.  He noted that the amendment                 
  would help to ensure that what little disposable cash was in                 
  rural areas remained there to help the residents of the                      
  communities.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 565                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that he did not object to the                      
  amendment, but expressed concern that adopting it would                      
  effectively kill SB 76 for this session.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 572                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON urged the committee to remember that it had                    
  plenty of time to do its job right.                                          
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 2.  Reps. Davidson                   
  and Nordlund voted "yea."  Reps. Phillips, James and Porter                  
  voted "nay."  Reps. Green and Kott passed.  And so,                          
  Amendment 2 failed.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 592                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN said that he would like to offer an amendment.                    
  An "at ease" was taken at 4:31 p.m.  The meeting reconvened                  
  at 4:49 p.m.                                                                 
                                                                               
  REP. GREEN then stated that he had decided not to offer his                  
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 614                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON offered Amendment 3, which would allow local                   
  communities to prohibit all charitable gaming.  He expressed                 
  his opinion that SB 76 would expand gaming in the state.                     
  Amendment 3 would allow local residents to protect                           
  themselves to some extent from that expansion.  He moved the                 
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  He stated that he did not object                  
  to the content of the amendment, but merely to making any                    
  amendments at all to SB 76 at this point.                                    
                                                                               
  Number 653                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND mentioned that the Chairman's desire to make                   
  additional reforms to charitable gaming next year might not                  
  come to pass, due to a lack of momentum behind reforms.  In                  
  that light, he recommended that SB 76 be amended now.                        
                                                                               
  Number 658                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed his opinion that if Amendment 3                    
  were introduced as a bill next year, it would enjoy a great                  
  deal of support.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 664                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES added that she would support a bill containing                    
  Amendment 3's provisions next year.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 666                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON noted that SB 76 would give purveyors of                       
  alcohol added income and the ability to put as many jars of                  
  pull-tabs on their bar counters as the counters could hold.                  
  He said that pull-tab income could pay the expenses of bar                   
  owners to come to Juneau to lobby against a bill containing                  
  Amendment 3's provisions.  He said that the state would                      
  never be able to effectively track pull-tab income, which                    
  was in fact used for lobbying expenses.  He expressed hope                   
  that the committee would "see the light" on this important                   
  public policy issue.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 689                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that pull-tabs could be sold in bars                   
  under current law, and that would continue upon enactment of                 
  SB 76.  He recognized that most of the committee members                     
  wished that the issue of charitable gaming would simply go                   
  away.  He commented that a person might enter a bar with $30                 
  in his or her pocket.  If pull-tabs were not there, he said,                 
  that person might "drink away" the $30.  If pull-tabs were                   
  there, they might lead to her or him drinking less and                       
  diverting some of that $30 to charities.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 707                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON said that the Chairman had made an excellent                   
  point.  He stated that the committee had the power to make                   
  the issue of charitable gaming go away.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 712                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that SB 76 did not preclude gambling.                 
  He called for a roll call vote on Amendment 3.  Reps.                        
  Nordlund and Davidson voted "yea."  Reps. Kott, Phillips,                    
  James, and Porter voted "nay."  Rep. Green passed.  And so,                  
  Amendment 3 failed.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 721                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON raised a procedural question regarding the                     
  vote on Amendment 2.  The Chairman, he said, had allowed two                 
  members to pass.  The amendment failed by a vote of 3 nays                   
  and 2 yeas.  He noted that when members passed, the vote                     
  should come back to them.                                                    
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS called for a re-vote on Amendment 2.                           
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-73, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  There was a motion to rescind the committee's action on                      
  Amendment 2.  Hearing no objection, the action was                           
  rescinded.                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON explained that Amendment 2 would allow local                   
  communities to prohibit pull-tab activity.                                   
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 2.  Reps. Nordlund                   
  and Davidson voted "yea."  Reps. Kott, Phillips, Green,                      
  James, and Porter voted "nay."  And so, Amendment 2 failed.                  
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND offered Amendment 4, which would prohibit                      
  gaming activities from taking place in bars and liquor                       
  stores.  He moved the amendment.                                             
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS objected.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 025                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND noted earlier concerns that charitable gaming                  
  proceeds might go toward lobbying or candidates.  He said                    
  that he could guarantee that proceeds received by bar owners                 
  would be used to lobby the legislature on legislation which                  
  favored the liquor industry, as well as legislation which                    
  allowed the liquor industry to continue to sell pull-tabs.                   
  He expressed his opinion that it was bad business to combine                 
  gambling and alcohol.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 049                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that one advantage of selling pull-                    
  tabs in bars was that children would not be exposed to that                  
  gambling activity.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 065                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND stated that people who purchased pull-tabs in                  
  bars could be easily preyed upon by unethical bartenders and                 
  bar owners, who could ask customers if, instead of getting                   
  cash as change, they wanted pull-tabs.                                       
                                                                               
  Number 084                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS noted that Rep. Nordlund's concern could apply                 
  to the sale of anything in bars, including jewelry and                       
  ivory.                                                                       
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND responded that he was not aware that                           
  bartenders were licensed by the state to sell ivory and                      
  jewelry in bars.                                                             
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS commented that it did occur, however.                          
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 4.  Reps. Davidson                   
  and Nordlund voted "yea."  Reps. Phillips, Green, Kott,                      
  James, and Porter voted "nay."  And so, the amendment                        
  failed.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 112                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON offered Amendment 5, which would delete SB
  76's prohibition against raffle proceeds being used for                      
  lobbying purposes.  He noted that Comm. Fuhs and others had                  
  testified that, under SB 76, raffle proceeds could be used                   
  to contribute to those who were lobbied, but not to those                    
  doing the lobbying.  He expressed his opinion that SB 76                     
  went too far in penalizing those with the least ability to                   
  raise money in order to promote their interests in the                       
  legislature.  He said that Amendment 5 would preserve a                      
  right which had been in existence since statehood.  He noted                 
  his belief that it was not a terrible thing that the Alaska                  
  Environmental Lobby, various women's and children's groups,                  
  and even chambers of commerce held raffles in order to fund                  
  their lobbying efforts.  He moved the amendment.                             
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS objected.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 158                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that, although he did not completely                    
  agree with SB 76's provision, he felt that Amendment 5 was a                 
  step in the wrong direction.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 166                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND indicated his understanding that the DCED did                  
  not oppose the amendment.  He asked Comm. Fuhs to comment.                   
                                                                               
  Number 170                                                                   
                                                                               
  COMM. FUHS responded that the DCED had not taken a position                  
  on the amendment, but did not oppose it.  He expressed                       
  concern that if the amendment would necessitate a title                      
  change, it could jeopardize the bill's chance to be enacted.                 
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 5.  Reps. Davidson                   
  and Nordlund voted "yea."  Reps. Phillips, Green, Kott,                      
  James, and Porter voted "nay."  And so, Amendment 5 failed.                  
                                                                               
  Number 193                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND offered amendment 6, which would limit                         
  charitable gaming activities to 501(c)(3) organizations,                     
  those recognized as non-profit entities under federal tax                    
  codes.  He moved the amendment.                                              
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS objected.                                                      
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 6.  Reps. Davidson                   
  and Nordlund voted "yea."  Reps. Green, Kott, Phillips,                      
  James, and Porter voted "nay."  And so, Amendment 6 failed.                  
                                                                               
  Number 230                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON offered Amendment 7, which would increase                      
  payments to permittees from 30% to 40% for pull-tab games,                   
  and from 10% to 15% for bingo, and also limit operator                       
  expenses to 60% for pull-tabs and to 85% for bingo.  He said                 
  that the effect of the amendment would be to increase the                    
  amount of money going to the permittees.  He moved the                       
  amendment.                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS objected.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 277                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he would support Amendment 7,                    
  but for the fear that its adoption would effectively kill SB
  76.  He suggested that it be brought back before the                         
  legislature after the DCED had determined how SB 76's                        
  percentages worked.                                                          
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON noted that instead of raising the percentages                  
  in the future, they could be raised now and adjusted                         
  downward in the future if need be.                                           
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that, either way, the legislature                  
  was attempting to strike a balance between maximizing                        
  profits to charities while still allowing vendors and                        
  operators to meet their expenses.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 309                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON expressed his opinion that it was sad that                     
  worthwhile charities were being given to the "gambling lion"                 
  to fund.  He commented that it was a sad commentary on our                   
  state and our society.                                                       
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that he would like to identify himself                  
  with those remarks.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 322                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES noted that Rep. Davidson was "preaching to the                    
  choir" and said that charities were the ones that supported                  
  gaming activities.                                                           
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 7.  Reps. Nordlund                   
  and Davidson voted "yea."  Reps. Kott, Green, Phillips,                      
  James, and Porter voted "nay."  And so, Amendment 7 failed.                  
                                                                               
  Number 338                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND offered Amendment 8, which would increase the                  
  percentage of the ideal net paid to the permittee at the                     
  time when pull-tabs were delivered to the vendor, from 50%                   
  to 75%.  He noted that, under SB 76's provisions, the                        
  permittee's 50% had to pay for the cost of the pull-tabs as                  
  well as taxes.  He moved the amendment.                                      
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS objected.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 376                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Amendment 8 would be worthy of                    
  consideration in the future, after the DCED had had an                       
  opportunity to review the effect of the 50/50 split                          
  contained in SB 76.                                                          
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 8.  Reps. Nordlund                   
  and Davidson voted "yea."  Reps. Green, Kott, Phillips,                      
  James, and Porter voted "nay."  And so, Amendment 8 failed.                  
                                                                               
  Number 402                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND commented that he had no more amendments to                    
  offer.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 409                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to move the Senate Finance                       
  Committee substitute for SB 76 out of committee, with                        
  individual recommendations.                                                  
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND objected.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 416                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON said that he had grave misgivings about how                    
  the bill was sent over to the House.  The Alaska Legislature                 
  was not a unicameral body, he stated, and the Senate had                     
  effectively tied the House's hands by sending over a bill                    
  with such a restrictive title.  He asserted that the House                   
  majority had assisted the Senate in that regard.  He noted                   
  that there was sometimes a need for hurried legislation, but                 
  expressed his opinion that there was still plenty of time                    
  remaining in the 1993 session.  He commented that many of                    
  the committee members were obviously uncomfortable with the                  
  "forced vote" on the amendments.  He expressed his opinion                   
  that SB 76 was harming the wrong people.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 441                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT noted that he agreed to some extent with Rep.                      
  Davidson.  But, he said, SB 76 represented a great                           
  improvement over current law.  He commented that the bill                    
  could be made even better, but tampering with it too much                    
  might mean that the legislature would end up with nothing.                   
  He said SB 76 brought about some reforms, which could be                     
  built upon in future years.  He stated that he would support                 
  moving the bill out of committee.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 456                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES said that if she had the opportunity, she would                   
  vote against all gambling, all bars, and gambling in bars.                   
  But, she said, those were not options at this time.  And,                    
  she said, she could not impose her beliefs on others to that                 
  extent.  She stated that there were currently grave concerns                 
  over charitable gaming activity.  She expressed her opinion                  
  that it was imperative that reforms happen this year.  She                   
  noted her distress over SB 76's restrictive title, but said                  
  that the Senate had visited every area and every concern                     
  that the Judiciary Committee had just considered, and had                    
  produced the version of SB 76 now before them.  She                          
  indicated her support for the bill.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 480                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON stated that all legislators were individuals,                  
  hopefully with their democratic faculties intact.  The House                 
  did not have to dance to the Senate drum, he added, nor to                   
  the drum beats of the lobbyists.  He said that the members                   
  of the House danced to the tune of their constituents.  He                   
  expressed his disappointment that, on the issue of                           
  charitable gaming, the system of checks and balances of the                  
  bicameral legislature had been undermined.  He said that                     
  there was nothing in the constitution which said that the                    
  House had to or should permit the Senate's activity.  He                     
  expressed his hope that, in the future, when the legislature                 
  was in a hurry not to do the public's business well, it at                   
  least took the time to do it as well as it possibly could.                   
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on moving SB 76 out of committee.                 
  Reps. Nordlund and Davidson voted "nay."  Reps. Green, Kott,                 
  Phillips, James, and Porter voted "yea."  And so, the Senate                 
  Finance Committee substitute for SB 76 passed out of                         
  committee.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 512                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that this would likely be the                          
  Judiciary Committee's last meeting of the year.  He                          
  expressed his pleasure in working with each member on the                    
  committee, and said that he looked forward to the following                  
  year.                                                                        
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.                           
  BILLS NOT HEARD                                                              
                                                                               
  The committee did not hear SCR 4 today.                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects