Legislature(1993 - 1994)

05/04/1994 03:00 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                           May 4, 1994                                         
                            3:00 p.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                        
  Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                   
  Representative Gail Phillips                                                 
  Representative Pete Kott                                                     
  Representative Joe Green                                                     
  Representative Cliff Davidson                                                
  Representative Jim Nordlund                                                  
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  SB 316:   "An Act relating to commercial fishing penalties."                 
            MOVED WITH LETTER OF INTENT                                        
  SB 370:   "An Act providing an exemption from gambling laws                  
            for gambling conducted by cruise ships for their                   
            ticketed passengers in the offshore water of the                   
            state; relating to promotions on board cruise                      
            ships; defining 'cruise ship'; providing for                       
            exemption procedures for certain cruise ships                      
            before they can conduct gambling in the offshore                   
            water of the state; and providing for an effective                 
            MOVED AS AMENDED                                                   
  SB 292:   "An Act relating to transfers of prisoners under                   
            the Interstate Corrections Compact."                               
            MOVED OUT                                                          
  HCR 37:   Proposing amendments to the Uniform Rules of the                   
            Alaska State Legislature relating to the Joint                     
            Committee on the Constitution and to joint                         
            resolutions; and providing for an effective date.                  
            NOT HEARD                                                          
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  DAVID THOMPSON, Aide                                                         
  Senator Rick Halford                                                         
  State Capitol, Room 111                                                      
  Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                        
  Phone:  465-4958                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Introduced CS SB 316(RES)                               
  DEAN PADDOCK                                                                 
  Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association                                         
  PO Box 21951                                                                 
  Juneau, AK 99802                                                             
  Phone:  789-4231 h./ 463-4970 w.                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed CS SB 316(RES)                                  
  JERRY MCCUNE, President                                                      
  United Fishermen of Alaska                                                   
  211 Fourth Street, Suite 112                                                 
  Juneau, AK 99801                                                             
  Phone:  586-2820                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported CS SB 316(RES)                                
  KATE TROLL, Executive Director                                               
  Southeast Alaska Seiners                                                     
  9226 Long Run                                                                
  Juneau, AK 99801                                                             
  Phone:  789-5117                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported CS SB 316(RES)                                
  ROSELEEN MOORE (SNOOKS), via teleconference                                  
  41980 Kachemak Dr.                                                           
  Homer, AK 99603                                                              
  Phone:  None Given                                                           
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed CS SB 316(RES)                                  
  DAN HENNICK, via teleconference                                              
  40345 Waterman Road                                                          
  Homer, AK 99603                                                              
  Phone:  None Given                                                           
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed CS SB 316(RES)                                  
  KEN RYFKOGEL                                                                 
  116 Seward St.                                                               
  Juneau, AK 99801                                                             
  Phone:  586-4367 h./586-4367 w.                                              
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CS SB 370(JUD)                             
  TOM DOW, Vice President of Hotels                                            
  Princess Tours                                                               
  2815 2nd Ave., No. 400                                                       
  Seattle, WA 98121                                                            
  Phone:  (206) 728-4202                                                       
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported CS SB 370(JUD)                                
  DON STOLWORTHY, Director                                                     
  Charitable Gaming Division                                                   
  Department of Revenue                                                        
  PO Box 110410                                                                
  Juneau, AK 99811-0440                                                        
  Phone:  465-2229                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CS SB 370(JUD)                             
  JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legal Council                                               
  Division of Legal Services                                                   
  Legislative Affairs Agency                                                   
  PO Box 110300                                                                
  Juneau, AK 99811-0300                                                        
  Phone:  465-3428                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CS SB 370(JUD)                             
  SUSAN BURKE, Attorney                                                        
  Representing Princess Cruise Lines                                           
  424 N. Franklin St.                                                          
  Juneau, AK 99801                                                             
  Phone:  586-2777                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported CS SB 370(JUD)                                
  DAVID SKIDMORE, Aide                                                         
  Senator Steve Frank                                                          
  State Capitol, Room 518                                                      
  Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                        
  Phone:  465-3709                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Introduced SB 292                                       
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  SB 316                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: FISHING VIOLATIONS:FINES & RECORDS                              
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)HALFORD,Jacko,Kerttula,                                
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/14/94      2831    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/14/94      2831    (S)   RES, FIN                                         
  03/02/94              (S)   RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
  03/02/94              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                      
  03/03/94      3056    (S)   RES RPT CS 3DP 4NR SAME TITLE                    
  03/03/94      3056    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS                           
                              PUBLISHED (LAW)                                  
  03/15/94              (S)   FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE FIN 518                   
  03/15/94              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  03/16/94      3240    (S)   FIN RPT  5DP 2NR (RES)CS                         
  03/16/94      3240    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO CS PUBLISHED                      
  03/16/94      3240    (S)   PREVIOUS FN APPLIES TO CS (LAW)                  
  03/15/94              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  03/16/94              (S)   RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/16/94              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/16/94              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518                   
  03/24/94      3344    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  3CAL 2NR                      
  03/24/94      3350    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/24/94      3350    (S)   RES  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  03/24/94      3350    (S)   AM NO  1 MOVED BY ADAMS                          
  03/24/94      3350    (S)   AM NO  1 FAILED  Y3 N12 E1 A4                    
  03/24/94      3351    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                   
  03/24/94      3351    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME                              
                              CSSB 316(RES)                                    
  03/24/94      3351    (S)   PASSED Y13 N2 E1 A4                              
  03/24/94      3351    (S)   Kerttula  NOTICE OF                              
  03/28/94      3379    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP/IN THIRD READING                  
  03/28/94      3380    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15                    
                              N4 E1                                            
  03/28/94      3380    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/29/94      3037    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/29/94      3037    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  04/15/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/16/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/16/94              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  04/18/94              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  05/02/94              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  05/04/94              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  SB 370                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: CRUISE SHIP GAMBLING & PROMOTIONS                               
  SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION BY REQUEST                                        
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  03/30/94      3408    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/30/94      3409    (S)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  04/06/94              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                   
  04/06/94              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  04/06/94              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  04/08/94      3524    (S)   JUD RPT CS 2DP 1NR NEW TITLE                     
  04/12/94              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518                   
  04/13/94      3625    (S)   FN TO SB PUBLISHED (REV)                         
  04/13/94      3626    (S)   FN TO CS PUBLISHED (REV)                         
  04/25/94              (S)   FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518                   
  04/27/94              (S)   RLS AT 05:00 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  04/27/94      4010    (S)   FIN RPT CS 2DP 2NR 1DNP                          
                              NEW TITLE                                        
  04/27/94      4010    (S)   FN TO CS PUBLISHED (REV)                         
  04/28/94      4072    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/28/94                       
  04/28/94      4078    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  04/28/94      4078    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  04/28/94      4079    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                   
  04/28/94      4079    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME                              
                              CSSB 370(FIN)                                    
  04/28/94      4079    (S)   PASSED Y11 N9                                    
  04/28/94      4080    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y20 N-                     
  04/28/94      4080    (S)   Pearce  NOTICE OF                                
  04/29/94      4185    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD                        
  04/29/94      4185    (S)   MOTION TO HOLD TO 5/2  CALENDAR                  
  04/29/94      4186    (S)   MOTION TO HOLD TO 5/2 FAILED                     
                              Y10 N10                                          
  04/29/94      4186    (S)   MOTION TO HOLD TO 5/3 CAL FLD                    
                              Y9 N11                                           
  04/29/94      4187    (S)   RESCIND ACTION FAILING TO HOLD                   
                              TO 5/2                                           
  04/29/94      4187    (S)   PREVIOUS ACTION RESCINDED                        
                              Y11 N9                                           
  04/29/94      4187    (S)   MOTION TO HOLD TO 5/2 CAL                        
                              ADOPTED Y11 N9                                   
  04/29/94      4187    (S)   HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 5/2                   
  05/02/94      4211    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO CS PUBLISHED                      
  05/02/94      4242    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y12                    
  05/02/94      4243    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE  SAME AS PASSAGE                  
  05/02/94      4260    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  05/03/94      3953    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  05/03/94      3953    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  05/04/94              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  SB 292                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: INTERSTATE TRANSFERS OF INMATES                                 
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) FRANK,Pearce                                          
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/11/94      2787    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/11/94      2787    (S)   JUD, FIN                                         
  03/23/94              (S)   JUD AT 02:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                   
  04/05/94      3445    (S)   JUD RPT  2DP 1NR                                 
  04/05/94      3445    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTES PUBLISHED                      
                              (CORR, DPS)                                      
  04/13/94              (S)   FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE FIN 518                   
  04/13/94              (S)   RLS AT 04:10 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  04/13/94      3623    (S)   FIN RPT  6DP                                     
  04/13/94      3624    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (CORR, DPS)                     
  04/27/94      4019    (S)   RLS RPT  3CAL 1DNP   4/27/94                     
  04/27/94      4045    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  04/27/94      4045    (S)   HELD TO NEXT CALENDAR                            
  04/28/94      4083    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                   
  04/28/94      4083    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME SB 292                       
  04/28/94      4083    (S)   PASSED Y15 N5                                    
  04/28/94      4092    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  04/29/94      3857    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  04/29/94      3857    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  05/02/94              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  05/04/94              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  HCR 37                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION                                 
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  04/27/94      3780    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  04/27/94      3780    (H)   JUDICIARY                                        
  05/02/94              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  05/04/94              (H)   JUD AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-67, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order                   
  at 3:15 on May 4, 1994.  A quorum was present.  CHAIRMAN                     
  PORTER stated that the following bills would be heard:  CSSB
  316(RES), CSSB 370(JUD), and SB 292.  He called Dave                         
  Thompson, Aide to Senator Halford forward to introduce the                   
  CSSB 316(RES).                                                               
  CSSB 316(RES) - AN ACT RELATING TO FISHING VIOLATIONS                        
  Number 027                                                                   
  DAVE THOMPSON, Aide to Senator Halford, Chief sponsor of SB
  316, explained that the Senator had drafted a Committee                      
  Substitute for the Judiciary Committee's consideration.  It                  
  basically strips everything that was in the bill, save for                   
  Section 1, which is the fines section.  All it would do                      
  would be to up the fines from the current $3,000 - $6,000 to                 
  a maximum of $6,000 - $12,000.  Everything else in the bill                  
  has been stripped out.                                                       
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said after the testimony we received last                    
  time we heard the bill, language concerning the suspended                    
  and revoked licenses is no longer in the bill.                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Thompson about one of the                     
  things we had in testimony with the original bill.  She                      
  asked if he knew whether there was an agreement with the                     
  Division to create a physical line of buoys in the water, or                 
  are they going to forget it because we are forgetting it?                    
  Number 070                                                                   
  MR. THOMPSON said Mr. Swackhammer might be able to answer                    
  that question a little more directly, but Mr. Swackhammer                    
  was not in the room at the moment.  He did know, after                       
  Representative Phillips focused on that particular part of                   
  it, the Department of Public Safety had previously discussed                 
  it.  The two issues from the department's mind were, one,                    
  that kind of activity would be undertaken, not by Public                     
  Safety, but rather Fish and Game.  Secondly, the cost                        
  factor; that line is about five miles long, and depending on                 
  how far you were to space buoys, it could be a fairly                        
  expensive project.  There were also concerns over the                        
  possibility of being able to get that done this year.  Those                 
  were the kind of responses we got when we inquired about                     
  Number 093                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the actual establishment of a                     
  buoy line as opposed to a (indiscernible) line, is the                       
  responsibility of the Department of Fish and Game, not the                   
  Department of Public Safety.  The committee had decided that                 
  when we take action on the bill, we will send a letter to                    
  the Department of Fish and Game asking them to strongly                      
  establish that as a buoy line.                                               
  Number 104                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES's concern was that the buoy line is not                 
  even involved in the bill, so it would be kind of ridiculous                 
  to send along a message that has nothing to do with the bill                 
  Number 110                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said he guessed we could not do it, but that                 
  would not help.  So we will continue to send a letter.                       
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that would be fine, and they                     
  would continue to do that.                                                   
  Number 120                                                                   
  DEAN PADDOCK spoke on behalf of the Bristol Bay Driftnetters                 
  Association, which is one of the fishermen's organizations                   
  of Bristol Bay.  We concur that there is indeed a problem                    
  there at the North Egegik line.  We welcome any opportunity                  
  where we can address that problem, especially if we can                      
  reach some sort of a solution.  We do appreciate the                         
  concerns which bring us here.  He said he had been directed                  
  by many of his members to do something about the North                       
  Egegik line.  He had also been told by many of his members                   
  what is proposed here today, is not really going to                          
  accomplish what the sponsor had hoped it would accomplish.                   
  He said he was not trying to run interference for a bunch of                 
  scoff laws.  He wondered if the committee was wondering if                   
  he had something at stake.  He took the opportunity to pass                  
  on that he refuses to fish the North Egegik line.  In twenty                 
  years in Bristol Bay, he has yet to receive a warning.  We                   
  are aware Senator Halford's legislation is intended, of                      
  course, for Egegik, but one of our problems is it covers the                 
  whole state.  Even so, we might support it if we felt it                     
  would actually accomplish something.  Mr. Paddock does not                   
  think it will, and explained why he felt that way.  He                       
  displayed a chart of the district, showing that the tide is                  
  falling, because the fish are coming into the district at                    
  that one spot, it is changing very rapidly.  He also had an                  
  aerial photograph.  Going by the chart, he disagreed that                    
  the line is not five miles, it is a couple of miles at high                  
  tide, but it is fished all the way down to low tide, at                      
  which time it is less than a mile.  He said this problem at                  
  this place has been exacerbated, because the regulations                     
  have pushed the fishermen into a shrinking area.  The red                    
  line on the chart is our present district.  Former districts                 
  were larger.  He only showed the most recent one, prior to                   
  the latest restriction.  In the photograph, the yellow lines                 
  show the present boundaries.  Unfortunately, the fishermen                   
  do not have any yellow lines out there to see.  The red                      
  shaded portion of the photograph is sort of a fuzzy area.                    
  You have been exposed to the background that this is a LORAN                 
  boundary.  We are aware of some of the deficiencies of LORAN                 
  equipment in precisely marking a district, it falls far                      
  short of being a razor edge, so there is sort of a fuzzy                     
  area there; and fishermen, being the competitive creatures                   
  that they are, will do their darnedest to get outside of the                 
  next guy.                                                                    
  MR. PADDOCK stated for years we have felt this should be                     
  marked visually.  We have not been able to get the Board of                  
  Fisheries to do that in the past because of some                             
  personalities that are involved, both in the Department of                   
  Fish and Game, and in the Department of Public Safety.  Both                 
  of those personalities are no longer with us, and today we                   
  have concurrence from Colonel Valentine of the Fish and                      
  Wildlife Protection Division that he believes this should be                 
  marked visually; and Director Koenings from the Department                   
  of Fish and Game believes this should be marked visually.                    
  He urged the committee to allow the Board of Fisheries to                    
  have another crack at this.  They will be addressing it in                   
  this very next Board cycle, in January of 1995.  We probably                 
  cannot get anything in place for 1994, but this problem has                  
  been with us for a number of years.                                          
  MR. PADDOCK said it has also been exacerbated by the fact                    
  that we have had increased returns to the Egegik District in                 
  recent years.  As a long time biologist in that area, Mr.                    
  Paddock does not really expect those big returns to last                     
  forever.  It sure would be great if they would.  Dr.                         
  Matieson, from the University, who is sort of the Dean of                    
  Bristol Bay fish scientists, if not Alaskan fish scientists;                 
  also agrees that this is a short time thing, and it is going                 
  to go away.  Mr. Paddock said he would hate to see the                       
  fishermen of the entire state of Alaska saddled with                         
  extremely punitive penalties because of the fact that we                     
  have not been able to deal with this boundary line by                        
  regulation in an adequate manner.                                            
  MR. PADDOCK once again asked the committee to give the Board                 
  an opportunity to do this, rather than doing it                              
  legislatively.  We may be back here next year, asking you                    
  folks to consider some of the things, at least to some                       
  degree that were extracted from this present committee                       
  substitute, because we agree that for one fisherman to                       
  accumulate 18 violations, most of which occurred right at                    
  this spot, is not really something we can accept.  Mr.                       
  Paddock has been told that we have got to do something about                 
  it.  He supported the bill if he felt it would indeed answer                 
  the goal it appears to have in mind.                                         
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that he is a setnetter out in                 
  Bristol Bay, but he did spend the summer on a drift-boat and                 
  fished Egegik, and we were in a fiberglass boat, and we were                 
  fishing on the line.  He said he had never been as scared of                 
  losing his life as he was on that North line at Egegik.  He                  
  appreciated the fact that Mr. Paddock requested we do a                      
  visual marking, and he requested the committee send along a                  
  letter of intent, encouraging the visual line.  He also said                 
  he thought it important that the legislature send a message                  
  that line violations should be taken seriously.  It seemed                   
  to him, given the value of the catch in some cases,                          
  especially in Egegik, that these increases are not that                      
  great.  He personally does not oppose them.                                  
  Number 330                                                                   
  MR. PADDOCK responded this supposed increase is a heck of a                  
  tool to the Department of Law,and the Department of Public                   
  Safety. He described it to be like a kid with a hammer.  If                  
  you give him a hammer, everything he sees looks like a nail.                 
  Once again, this is a statewide statute where we are                         
  concerned with something that is fairly localized.  He said                  
  he hated to see Bristol Bay be the focus of something that                   
  develops into a statewide tool which is supposedly maximums.                 
  Maximums have a way of growing, just the way cute little                     
  kittens have a way of growing up to be lions and tigers.  He                 
  did not agree that this would be good policy, good                           
  Number 355                                                                   
  JERRY MCCUNE, President of United Fishermen of Alaska stated                 
  that he has had the Board members look the bill over, and                    
  the majority of the UFA Board agrees with the present form                   
  of the bill, and thanks Senator Halford for dropping all the                 
  other portions they had a problem with.  We appreciate that,                 
  so as far as he could tell, the majority of the groups at                    
  UFA support the current bill.                                                
  Number 370                                                                   
  KATE TROLL, Executive Director of Southeast Alaska Seiners                   
  said her Board of Directors looked at the original SB 316,                   
  and voted to support it.  We do have to support cleaning up                  
  our industry, even though this is not targeted to our area.                  
  We felt, on principle, in support of that notion.  Then when                 
  the CS came out, we were very concerned about all the change                 
  of evidence, and penalizing potentially very innocent                        
  fishermen, and we, like other fishing groups,                                
  (indiscernible) to try and take out those parts that really                  
  bothered us, but now we are back to just a portion, which                    
  was in the original bill, and with that, she wanted to let                   
  the committee know they currently do support the CS as                       
  written for SB 316.                                                          
  ROSELEEN MOORE (SNOOKS), fisherwoman of Homer opposed SB
  316.  She thought it would severely hurt many fishermen.                     
  She believed this legislation was created for only one area.                 
  She explained that on the Egegik line, 600 - 800 boats have                  
  to take turns setting nets on top of each other, and the                     
  fining will not change this problem.  The change needs to be                 
  made in the way this line is fished.                                         
  Number 430                                                                   
  DAN HENNICK, Homer resident, opposed the bill.  He stated                    
  that it serves no purpose.  A $12,000 fine could be a whole                  
  season's income.  Fish and Game and Public Safety should be                  
  required to create a physical line.  He believed the bill                    
  should die in committee.                                                     
  Number 534                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON agreed with Mr. Hennick.  Without a                  
  greater enforcement presence, it seems we are not really                     
  serious as far as getting the job done out there.  It seems                  
  there might be technological capabilities, or opportunities                  
  we could use to shoot a line and do a better job of                          
  enforcement in that way.  He said he would vote against                      
  moving the bill out of committee, because doubling these                     
  penalties at a time when the fish prices are like they are,                  
  we know for a fact that often times, because of inadequate                   
  enforcement efforts and overtaxed enforcement presence,                      
  sometimes injustice is done, and $6,000 or $12,000 could                     
  negatively impact a lot of the fishermen's livelihoods.  He                  
  urged his colleagues in this committee to put their money                    
  where there vote is, and try to get some enforcement dollars                 
  out there to make an honest effort to deal with the problem,                 
  instead of trying to create the policing activities by the                   
  industry itself, and so he felt the bill should stay in                      
  committee a little longer until they make sure they measure                  
  their true commitment to enforcement of the law.                             
  Number 565                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved HCS for CSSB 316 for purposes of                   
  discussing the CS.                                                           
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was objection on the motion                   
  to adopt the HCS for CSSB 316, dated 4-28-94.  Seeing no                     
  objection, he announced they now had the bill in front of                    
  them for discussion.                                                         
  Number 570                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she had not heard any argument as                  
  to why these fines need to be raised.  She has listened to                   
  lots and lots of testimony, and she has not heard any                        
  argument as to why they need to be so high.  She thought the                 
  problem, that was a major part of the original bill had no                   
  solution in the CS.  The CS deals only with raising the                      
  fines.  She agreed with Representative Davidson in that the                  
  higher you raise the "no more than" fees, the higher all the                 
  fines under it are raised.  She thought raising the maximum                  
  limit would make all other penalties unnecessarily higher.                   
  She was not comfortable with moving the bill until she could                 
  hear some real good reasons why they need to raise these                     
  CHAIRMAN PORTER responded to Representative James's                          
  concerns.  He said the north Egegik line has the potential                   
  for a considerable amount of take in one set, and an awful                   
  lot of fish.  There was discussion during the first                          
  presentation that when the prices were up, there were                        
  fishermen who were consciously going over the line, because                  
  the risk of the catch was so low, that if they did get                       
  nailed, the fine was not sufficient to deter.  The original                  
  version contained  what could be considered a real hammer,                   
  in terms of deterrent effect on not violating.  What he                      
  liked is the fact that this CS represents a compromise that                  
  Jerry and his fishermen have bought into, and some of the                    
  others.  On an individual basis, based on how much the catch                 
  was, and the individual violation, it allows a judge to look                 
  at that individual situation and see if it might have been                   
  intentional; and it might have been with this profit motive                  
  involved.  Consequently, this would justify a higher fine.                   
  Again, this is a maximum.  To use an analogy, we see an                      
  awful lot of signs around saying there is a $1,000 fine for                  
  littering, but there is probably nobody who has every been                   
  fined $1,000 for littering, unless they took a garbage truck                 
  out and intentionally dumped it in a lot.  That is why there                 
  needs to be flexibility in fines, so when an exceptional                     
  situation occurs, you have the option of an exceptional                      
  penalty as well.                                                             
  Number 620                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES thought Chairman Porter was putting an                  
  awful lot of faith in the court system.  She had heard                       
  testimony that the court system was not very dependable.                     
  Number 630                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said he thought there was some implicit                      
  notion that they have to have some degree of faith in the                    
  system, or maybe they should repeal everything.                              
  Number 632                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there was a problem with the                       
  section stating this is for the whole state on every issue.                  
  She thinks it is really to broad.  If they want to make the                  
  fine reflect the violation, and we put that in statute, she                  
  would be more comfortable in saying that.  Certainly, she                    
  looked, and having been from the timber industry, she knows                  
  for cutting trees that are over the line, the fine is three                  
  times the value of the tree.  She asked why they could not                   
  have something like that, instead of having it just be this                  
  great big, not more than, that is just at the whim of                        
  whomever wants to charge it.                                                 
  Number 645                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON concurred with Representative                        
  James's remarks.  He thought they had the little kitty that                  
  is going to turn into a monster cat.  He felt they were                      
  going to do a lot of damage to a lot of livelihoods.  He                     
  said if we are not going to do the program justice by giving                 
  the resources to the enforcement people in the first place,                  
  why would this help?                                                         
  Number 660                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER recognized that this does not propose to be                  
  the specific answer to this specific problem we are dealing                  
  with, although it certainly is the intention of the                          
  committee to write the letter we have discussed regarding                    
  the buoy line.  It is very encouraging to hear that Colonel                  
  Valentine, who I spoke to and Deputy Commissioner                            
  Swackhammer, are here to confirm that; and now the                           
  appropriate division of Fish and Game is interested in                       
  working together to establish that line in that fashion.                     
  That, speaks even more to the fact that it would be                          
  appropriate to have this level of fine available, because if                 
  they are able to establish a buoy line, and then there is a                  
  violation, that is somebody who needs to get their                           
  Number 665                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS move to pass HCS CSSB 316 out of                     
  committee with individual recommendations.                                   
  ROLL CALL VOTE   Representative Brian Porter      Y                          
                   Representative Jeannette James   N                          
                   Representative Gail Phillips     Y                          
                   Representative Pete Kott         Y                          
                   Representative Joe Green         Y                          
                   Representative Cliff Davidson    N                          
                   Representative Jim Nordlund      Y                          
  HCS CSSB 316 was voted out of committee, 5 - 2.                              
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS moved to add the letter of intent to                 
  the bill.                                                                    
  ROLL CALL VOTE   Representative Brian Porter      Y                          
                   Representative Jeannette James   Y                          
                   Representative Gail Phillips     Y                          
                   Representative Pete Kott         Y                          
                   Representative Joe Green         Y                          
                   Representative Cliff Davidson    N                          
                   Representative Jim Nordlund      Y                          
  The committee moved the letter of intent with a 6 - 1 vote.                  
  SB 370 - CRUISE SHIP GAMBLING & PROMOTIONS                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the next bill to be SB 370.                        
  Number 690                                                                   
  KEN RYFKOGEL, Juneau resident, said he has looked over SB
  370, and does not have a problem with the bill; however, he                  
  would like to see a couple of additions, particularly when                   
  it comes to the disclosure of the promotions on board the                    
  cruise ships.  The cruise ship operator should be required                   
  to publish fees charged and paid by those businesses that                    
  have been included in the on-board promotion to allow all                    
  businesses access to those promotions.  The second item is,                  
  the cruise ship operator may not discriminate by only                        
  promoting ports of call that have businesses which subscribe                 
  or have paid for on-board promotions.  He gave a couple of                   
  examples where that has happened in the past.  Last year,                    
  there was a businessman that came into his jewelry store                     
  here in Juneau, who told him of a situation where he was on                  
  a cruise ship, where in Sitka, the cruise ship line did not                  
  have any businesses that were paying for on-board                            
  promotions.  As a result of that, they were told, but they                   
  put it in such a way that it is not called "promotion" or                    
  "infamercial", if you want to call it that; it is called                     
  "guaranteed shops."  And we do not have any guaranteed shops                 
  in Sitka.  As a result of that, some people were very                        
  reluctant about shopping in Sitka.  It sets a mind set that                  
  1) maybe we should not shop at all and 2) it will affect                     
  places like Haines, or Seward, or wherever the cruise ship                   
  lines may go, or wherever the cruise ship lines do decide to                 
  do promotions on board, and get fees for.  He thinks this                    
  will force businesses to pay to join.                                        
  Number 753                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Ryfkogel what he meant by there                    
  were no guaranteed shops in Sitka.  He asked if he was                       
  correct in saying that they have not established a guarantee                 
  whereby they will indemnify the purchase with any of these                   
  shops.  Is that not the arrangement?                                         
  MR. RYFKOGEL replied that was the arrangement.                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that while they are not saying "Don't                   
  shop there," they are saying they will not indemnify the                     
  purchase.  Is that correct?                                                  
  MR. RYFKOGEL said they call it guaranteed shopping.                          
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said what that amounts to is when they                       
  return home, if they find out that for some reason their                     
  item is broken, or it was not the value that they thought,                   
  the cruise line will guarantee that purchase price?                          
  MR. RYFKOGEL said that was right.                                            
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked MR. Ryfkogel if he did not think that                  
  was a fair arrangement.                                                      
  MR. RYFKOGEL thought it to be a fair arrangement, and is not                 
  opposed to that guarantee at all.  Neither is he opposed to                  
  the promotion, because we are going to be faced with that;                   
  however, we are the only community in the United States that                 
  has that.  He thinks Alaska is the first place to be tested                  
  on that in the United States.  Norwegian Cruise lines is a                   
  heavy hitter.  He said he was not saying they were not going                 
  to live with promotions on board ships, but what they were                   
  saying is there is some discrimination in certain                            
  communities whereby the cruise ship line makes it known that                 
  they do not have any shops in those communities.  That is a                  
  concern for those communities whereby the merchants say, "I                  
  do not want to participate."                                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that in Chicago they used to                     
  call it insurance.                                                           
  Number 788                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for clarification.  He asked Mr.                   
  Ryfkogel if he believed that if the cruise lines knew there                  
  were no shops in that particular community, that they would                  
  not offer that particular community as a stop, per the                       
  cruise arrangement.                                                          
  MR. RYFKOGEL said they would stop in different ports, and                    
  they would continue to stop in different ports.  His concern                 
  is that they would stop in Sitka, as an example, and say                     
  that we do not have any guaranteed shops in Sitka, and as a                  
  result of that, it would have a damaging effect on the town                  
  of Sitka, as an example, by using this guaranteed shop                       
  promotion idea, if you want to call it that.  Call it                        
  whatever you want, or "ads" or advertising or whatever.  The                 
  point is they have a way of forcing the merchants in Sitka                   
  to join in this scheme.  You would have to know this scheme                  
  in order to understand it.  It is a scheme where they come                   
  to you, and there is no published fees.  It is whatever a                    
  business can pay, or whatever they decide a business can                     
  pay, and they pick the businesses.  You do not pick them,                    
  they pick you.  That is the way it is and it is a problem,                   
  and if we do not address it today, we are going to be                        
  addressing it sometime in the future.                                        
  Number 806                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Mr. Ryfkogel if his business                   
  had been picked,  or approached, or if he knew of any                        
  businesses in Juneau that have been approached, and asked                    
  him to explain.                                                              
  Number 809                                                                   
  MR. RYFKOGEL said his business has not and will not be                       
  picked.  He did know of others who had been approached.                      
  Based on the meeting at the Chamber of Commerce, that the                    
  man from Norwegian Cruise Lines attended, they could not                     
  actually talk fees.  There were different fees for different                 
  businesses, and there were different arrangements for                        
  different businesses.  He thought there should be a fee                      
  schedule that someone could look at to determine if it is                    
  Number 834                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if Mr. Ryfkogel had noticed a                      
  difference in the amount of traffic between his shop and                     
  other shops in Juneau.                                                       
  Number 840                                                                   
  MR. RYFKOGEL said he had not.                                                
  Number 841                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he always tried to avoid stores                     
  mentioned by cruise ship directors, because he felt like                     
  there was some type of inclusion cost built in; so to avoid                  
  that cost, he went elsewhere, taking just the opposite                       
  TAPE NO. 94-67, SIDE B                                                       
  Number 000                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked how the illegality could be                    
  measured.  By what measurement could enforcement take place                  
  as a result of the illegality of this commercial                             
  MR. RYFKOGEL thought the fees needed to be published, and                    
  the cruise ships should be told they cannot talk down a                      
  community because they do not have people who have signed on                 
  with the cruise ships.                                                       
  TOM DOW, Vice President of Hotels for Princess Tours                         
  explained that the bill would allow ships to operate on-                     
  board casinos while traveling throughout the inside passage                  
  as part of the entertainment packages offered to passengers.                 
  He said, "essentially we've determined through fairly                        
  extensive public research that there is very little public                   
  opposition to this because there is a recognition that this                  
  activity is offered only to passengers who are paying for a                  
  cruise vacation and that it is come to be accepted as part                   
  of a normal offering of this type and that it never has any                  
  impact on the citizens or communities of Alaska because it                   
  all takes place offshore.                                                    
  MR. DOW stated, "We have no objection, I will hasten to add,                 
  to a restriction on on-board promotion of gift shops.  When                  
  this came up in the Senate Judiciary Committee I testified                   
  that Princess does not support or participate in those kinds                 
  of promotions, nor do the vast, vast majority of the other                   
  permanent, long-term operators, certainly not the ones that                  
  have the kinds of investments landside that Princess and                     
  Holland America have.  Two years ago (indiscernible) tried                   
  to initiate a program like this.  They were widely                           
  criticized within the cruise line industry in Alaska.                        
  They're not back this year.  So the only guys that have ever                 
  done it, aren't here.  Norwegian Cruise Lines came in a few                  
  weeks ago with a promotion.  This is the first year that                     
  they will sail in Alaska, so I think it's --I don't want to                  
  say that there's no threat as a result of this and that it                   
  shouldn't be something of concern to business owners in                      
  coastal communities in Alaska, because I think there's                       
  always the threat that it could appear because it's fairly                   
  prevalent in the Caribbean and some other trades.  But we                    
  certainly recognize the difference in Alaska - we want to                    
  support Alaskan businesses.  I understand the very complex                   
  nature of restraint of trade and so on, but I'm not a                        
  lawyer, so I won't try to decipher all of that.  I just say                  
  that we would support restricting it or disclosing it.  We                   
  don't intend to participate in it on behalf of my company,                   
  and neither do most of the other big companies in Alaska."                   
  Number 150                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked what kind of gambling they                     
  have on ships.                                                               
  Number 152                                                                   
  MR. DOW answered they have crap tables, roulette wheels,                     
  poker tables, blackjack tables, and slot machines.                           
  Number 156                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked what percentage of clientele                   
  come to them primarily for the gambling.                                     
  Number 158                                                                   
  MR. DOW would say it is zero.  His intuitive reaction is                     
  that it is not a primary reason why people choose to take a                  
  cruise to Alaska.  If they are hard core gamblers, they can                  
  do it a lot cheaper elsewhere than they can on a cruise to                   
  Alaska.  It has become accepted that the large cruise ships                  
  with over 500 passengers have certain amenities on board,                    
  including a theater with live musical Broadway shows, and                    
  that type of thing - a health spa, a casino, some kind of                    
  swimming pool.  A lot of them have golf driving off the back                 
  end, and skeet shooting, and other activities as well, in                    
  combination with port calls and other shore excursion                        
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked what parameters were in place                  
  around the gambling aboard ship.                                             
  MR. DOW said the casinos are not open in port, and beyond                    
  that it is based on traffic.  Casino activity is heavier in                  
  the Caribbean trades, in Mexico and the Mediterranean where                  
  there is a little bit younger crowd, and people are more                     
  interested in nightlife activities.  He presumed most of the                 
  committee members have been in a port where one of their                     
  ships has pulled into port and seen that most of these                       
  people are not late night party animals, for lack of a                       
  better term.                                                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there was an age requirement to                 
  enter the casinos.                                                           
  MR. DOW said yes, there is.                                                  
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented on how much money she had                  
  lost in cruise ship casinos and stated these fees seemed to                  
  be pretty low.                                                               
  MR. DOW responded that "Well, we have one basis of                           
  comparison in the United States and I guess I would say that                 
  we have kind of a unique situation here.  Most of the other                  
  cruise operators in the United States are either going out -                 
  a few out of the mid-Atlantic coastal areas, mostly though                   
  Miami and Southern California.  They go straight out three                   
  miles and then there out, and it doesn't matter.  The same                   
  thing, by the way, applies to us when we're in Canadian                      
  waters, when we're coming across the Gulf of Alaska on the                   
  way to Seward, in other areas when we're outside three                       
  miles.  So we're talking about inside passage, basically                     
  Ketchikan to Skagway, Haines is the area that's impacted, so                 
  it's not the entire cruise even under the AG's ruling last                   
  year.  The one real comparable geographic location in the                    
  United States is the Chesapeake Bay of Maryland, where                       
  you're in inside passage surrounded by state lands on both                   
  sides.  Maryland just passed an exemption which was heavily                  
  promoted by the Port of Baltimore to encourage cruise ships                  
  to call there and we just obtained a license - in fact, it                   
  was the first license obtained under this new law this year.                 
  Twenty-five dollars is what it cost.  So our proposition is                  
  that per ship, Princess will be paying each year, under this                 
  scenario, $30,000 for most of our ships and $20,000 for some                 
  of them with our fleet deployment plans that are already out                 
  there and available, most of ours will be in the $30,000 -                   
  $40,000 class."                                                              
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS questioned if that was per ship.                     
  MR. DOW responded per ship per year.                                         
  REPRESENTATIVES PHILLIPS asked if they paid anything for the                 
  transporting section through Canada.                                         
  MR. DOW responded no.                                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how many ships they had coming to                  
  MR. DOW commented that Princess has six ships deployed to                    
  Alaska at this time.                                                         
  Number 275                                                                   
  DON STOLWORTHY, Director of the Charitable Gaming Division,                  
  Department of Revenue came forward for questions.                            
  Number 282                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said there were questions about the fees.                    
  MR. STOLWORTHY said their records show that in 1994 there                    
  were 19 ships calling.  If everybody participated and paid                   
  the fee, that would be $590,000.  In 1995, Princess will be                  
  adding a ship, and there is another ship or two scheduled to                 
  come on line after that.  So he would say $600,000 -                         
  $700,000 if everybody participates.                                          
  Number 293                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the money was earmarked for                 
  anything specifically, other than going into the general                     
  Number 295                                                                   
  MR. STOLWORTHY said his knowledge, under this draft, was                     
  that it goes to the general fund.                                            
  Number 302                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked what kind of costs would be                    
  associated with this exemption certificate.                                  
  Number 308                                                                   
  MR. STOLWORTHY explained that the fiscal note attached                       
  stated $38.6 to be the annual cost for a part-time                           
  investigator.  That person would probably come in March to                   
  process the exemption certificates the cruise ships                          
  submitted, file the reports, get their paperwork back to                     
  them, be available to answer questions regarding complaints,                 
  et cetera.                                                                   
  Number 328                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if these funds would be                        
  separately accounted for.                                                    
  MR. STOLWORTHY said they could say exactly how much was                      
  received, but once it made it into the general fund, you                     
  would not be able to determine where the specific funds were                 
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that the Department of                        
  Revenue, at some point may want to use these funds for                       
  tourism promotion.  Perhaps the committee would like to                      
  adopt a letter of intent to that effect.                                     
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said he would certainly consider it.                         
  Number 345                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked about the fiscal note.  As a                      
  seasonal investigator, what would be the amount of time this                 
  person would be working?                                                     
  Number 350                                                                   
  MR. STOLWORTHY stated that without knowing the amount of                     
  effort that would be involved, he estimated one person full                  
  time for five months, March through September.  He did not                   
  know if that would be too little or more, he could not tell.                 
  He said Investigator II's make about $63,000 including                       
  Number 365                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON made motion to adopt HCS for CSSB
  370 (JUD).                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was any objection to                          
  adoption.  There was no objection.                                           
  Number 375                                                                   
  JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Council for the Division of                     
  Legal Services.  He said he could explain what the HCS was                   
  doing that passed the Senate.  There were two changes he                     
  made, working with Daniella.  The first change is on page                    
  three, lines 13 - 14.  We added a provision that says "the                   
  cruise ship is not to conduct gambling in, or within three                   
  miles of a state port visited by the cruise ship."  That was                 
  in the bill as it proceeded through the Senate                               
  Transportation and Judiciary Committees, and was taken out                   
  in the Senate Finance Committee.   Adding that provision                     
  back in just does what it says.  We are not going to allow                   
  any gambling to occur in port or within three miles, as the                  
  ship is approaching the port.  The second change is on page                  
  two, line 23.  It clarifies a provision in the definition                    
  "cruise ship" as to what a cruise ship would be.  Line 23                    
  explains that a cruise ship provides on board, overnight                     
  accommodations and meals for those passengers.  The words                    
  "on board the ship" were added by Mr. Luckhaupt to clarify                   
  that these accommodations must be provided on board the                      
  ship.  There was a concern that a little gambling junket                     
  vessel would possibly leave from Juneau or some port,                        
  traveling up to Skagway, allow gambling all the way up, and                  
  then put the passengers off the boat, so they would then be                  
  accommodated in the Great Northern Hotel, or something like                  
  that; and then they would get back on the next day, and                      
  proceed to the next port, letting folks off.  He was trying                  
  to carve a narrow exception for these large cruise ships                     
  that provide these accommodations on board the ship.                         
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that was a point that she                       
  wanted to address because out of Homer, there are tour                       
  boats, that are fairly large and have overnight                              
  accommodations, that feed people and take them out on                        
  fishing trips.  With everything that has been stipulated,                    
  there is nothing to exempt them from applying for one of the                 
  permits to have gambling on board those boats.  They go                      
  outside the three-mile limit for fishing, they have                          
  overnight accommodations, they stay over the weekend or                      
  easily stay 72 hours.  So we are opening up a whole new                      
  arena of possibilities in Alaska.  These are small ships -                   
  small boats.                                                                 
  MR. LUCKHAUPT responded "That is a possibility to the extent                 
  that they operate 120 days a year and do go on cruises of at                 
  least 72 hours, it would be possible for that to occur.                      
  I've come up with a few possibilities for the committee, if                  
  the committee were to choose to maybe tighten up that                        
  exemption a little more.  I see two basic areas where you                    
  can do something with that.  Susan Burke, who represents -                   
  who's doing some work from the law firm of Av Gross and                      
  Susan Burke, presented me with a copy of the Maryland                        
  statute a little while ago that Mr. Dow referred to that                     
  Maryland recently adopted along this subject.  The Maryland                  
  statute provides that  these cruises must originate or                       
  terminate in a foreign port outside the United States.  And                  
  that's a possibility.  That approach has been broached to me                 
  yesterday evening and today.  I have some serious concerns                   
  about doing that on equal protection grounds.  In Alaska,                    
  the Alaska Supreme Court doesn't really run their equal                      
  protection analysis under the U.S. Supreme Court's analysis                  
  - the way the U.S. Supreme Court analyzes equal protection                   
  issues.  The Alaska Supreme Court has recognized that our                    
  equal protection clause is stronger than the federal equal                   
  protection clause, and the Alaska Supreme Court uses a                       
  sliding scale approach to determine whether or not a                         
  violation of equal protection has occurred.  And the courts                  
  identifies a point on this scale - identifies the interest                   
  that's being invaded by the state or the classification that                 
  the state uses and then slides up and down that scale to                     
  find a point where they'll then require a greater or lesser                  
  showing from the state to justify that classification.  My                   
  concern is that this classification that the cruise begin or                 
  end outside of the United States, is that why has the                        
  legislature chosen that classification?  I can't see a real                  
  strong distinction when I look at it as to why the                           
  legislature should choose that distinction.  The rationale                   
  for it is, as it's been explained to me, is that for the                     
  most part, if you have the cruise beginning or ending                        
  outside of the state of Alaska, in this case, that you will                  
  draw in most of the customers for that cruise from out of                    
  state and you'll be encouraging tourism within the state,                    
  but you'll be drawing from people outside of the state.                      
  Now, the trouble with that analysis as I see it is that we                   
  have a number of cruise ships, they're different kinds of                    
  cruise ships, that do operate from - work out of Juneau                      
  here.  They begin and end their cruise here in Juneau and go                 
  out for seven days and then come back.  For the most part,                   
  those ships - well my understanding is that none of those                    
  ships offer gambling right now - but they do draw the vast                   
  majority - 99 percent or 100 percent - of their passengers                   
  from outside the state also.  And I don't necessarily see a                  
  distinction that we'll only be drawing people from outside                   
  the state if the cruise  begins or ends outside the state.                   
  Now that's a possibility, but I also see some other                          
  "This Maryland statute also provides that the cruise ship                    
  must provide overnight accommodations - overnight cabin                      
  accommodations - for at least 300 passengers.  And that's an                 
  attempt to get at these larger cruise ships and eliminate                    
  the possibility that we can have these small gambling                        
  junkets - a different way to use the term floating crap game                 
  or something like that - than the normal understanding of                    
  the word, you would be able to attack those smaller                          
  operations.  A gambling junket that had to provide overnight                 
  accommodations for 300 or 400 or 500 people probably is not                  
  going to be able to do that just on the basis of gambling                    
  alone.  That the primary purpose of the cruise would have to                 
  be scenic cruising and port visits, as we require in this                    
  bill already.   So  that would be one approach.                              
  "Tying in with that, this committee could increase the                       
  length of the tour - that would be longer than 72 hours, but                 
  we would have to be careful of that to determine that the                    
  cruises from Vancouver say up to Juneau that they will do                    
  that in greater than 72 hours or 96 hours or whatever the                    
  legislature were to provide, because there are people that                   
  do - it's my understanding there are people on the big                       
  cruise lines that  do join the cruise in Juneau on occasion,                 
  especially earlier in the year and the end of the year, they                 
  have little deals that down in Seattle they advertise for a                  
  little cheaper amount of money to get people to get on those                 
  legs of the cruise.                                                          
  "Another possibility would be to require a minimum number                    
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that this wording wouldn't                         
  preclude somebody from getting on a ship in one port and                     
  getting off in another port that was not 72 hours in                         
  duration.  But what we're talking about was that the cruise                  
  itself was over 72 hours in duration.                                        
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said "We also get involved when we get                         
  involved with people getting on in one Alaska port, say in                   
  Juneau, and  getting off in Ketchikan, or something like                     
  that.  If it's a foreign vessel, they cannot - foreign                       
  vessels are prohibited from transporting domestic passengers                 
  from one domestic port to another without stopping in a                      
  foreign port.                                                                
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said he understood that, but setting the                     
  Jones Act stuff aside, if that were not the law this still                   
  would not preclude someone getting on in one port and                        
  getting off in another and that not being 72 hours, but                      
  still the exemption would still be valid because the cruise                  
  itself was 72 hours.                                                         
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said "Technically, that possibility might be                   
  true.  The way this is worded, this exemption, is that they                  
  have to provide these cruises for at least 72 hours in                       
  length for their ticketed passengers.  But the cruise ship                   
  exemption says that the gambling is conducted by the cruise                  
  ship for its ticketed passengers, so potentially a passenger                 
  has  to be ticketed for the cruise and the cruise then would                 
  be 72 hours.  There could be situations where someone does                   
  get off early because of some problem, but I don't think                     
  that would  be a problem.   But the cruise itself would have                 
  to be  greater than 72 hours and the passengers would have                   
  to be ticketed for the cruise, is the way I understand the                   
  meaning of the bill.  So technically, all the passengers                     
  would be ticketed for at least 72 hours, I would think."                     
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said unless we add a provision as to                 
  the number of passengers or passengers boarding out of state                 
  and having to return out of state or something like that,                    
  she could see a whole new arena of halibut charter business                  
  in Homer that is going...the charter operators are going to                  
  be able to offer gambling because these boats do go out,                     
  they have berths for people, they take them out on cruises,                  
  but they're fishing trips, and they're going to be able to                   
  offer gambling as an incentive for people to come on that -                  
  I can just see we're opening up a whole new arena of                         
  businesses or industry or something -- are we ready to get                   
  into that?                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if we want to disallow fishing                    
  charters from doing this and asked if that couldn't be                       
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said "We had defined in cruise that the                        
  purpose of the cruise must have as its main purpose scenic                   
  cruising and port visits at maritime communities in the                      
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that a boat going out of Homer                  
  and traveling to Seldovia - that's a very scenic cruise.                     
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said that people are going to do                     
  what they want to do and didn't see how the concerns of                      
  Representative Phillips were directly affected by this.  He                  
  said it could be tried and if there are too many loopholes,                  
  the law can always be changed.                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said we do have severability in this.  If we                 
  adopt a couple of these extra added attractions and someone                  
  were to take the legislature to task and win that this was                   
  somehow unconstitutional, we have not affected the rest of                   
  the bill.  He said he was not opposed to putting in these                    
  kinds of restrictions, because we're trying to accommodate                   
  one particular tourist industry and promote that industry in                 
  the state.  We're not trying to develop an industry in                       
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said "Adding in a requirement that a cruise                    
  ship provide accommodations for at least 300 passengers, I                   
  don't necessarily see the challenge occurring                                
  (indiscernible) if there was one.  What I think Chairman                     
  Porter was alluding  to was a requirement that the cruise                    
  begin and end outside of the state - begin or end in a port                  
  outside the state.  It would be listed as one of the                         
  requirements and under our general severability section in                   
  Title 1, the legislature has set forth that statute that                     
  says that if any part of a statute is found to be                            
  unconstitutional that it is therefore severed from - the                     
  court shall make every opportunity to severe it - to delete                  
  that section and make the rest of the act still apply.  That                 
  can occur and the courts have applied that analysis to                       
  separate out those (indiscernible) portions of an act of the                 
  legislature.  So that could occur.  There is not general                     
  agreement with my analysis - well, with attorneys you can                    
  have a difference of opinion and....Susan Burke is not as                    
  upset about this provision as I am.  Meanwhile, I talked to                  
  a representative of the Department of Law who shared my                      
  concerns about the equal protection problem.  We may never                   
  ever have a problem because of equal protection because                      
  we'll have to have someone come forward and challenge that.                  
  To challenge that it's going to have to be somebody who                      
  wants to bring a very large cruise ship up to Juneau and                     
  start their cruises in Juneau or something like that and                     
  then operate throughout the state for a week at a time,                      
  return to Juneau without leaving the state.  It's not a very                 
  likely thing.  The nitch for Juneau in in-state cruises has                  
  been for the most part, smaller cruise ships coming up to                    
  Juneau and operating and grabbing a nitch that the large                     
  cruise ships do not occupy --trying to get a more personal                   
  cruise and one that's - like I said, a more personal cruise,                 
  getting in closer to the local communities possibly, is a                    
  way to describe those cruises.  And so we may not ever see a                 
  challenge on those equal protection grounds, but it's                        
  something that you should be aware of and I personally, do                   
  not see the justification the state will have when the                       
  Department of Law has to defend that provision.  But that                    
  doesn't mean that we won't lose it or that we won't be                       
  challenged on that, that it won't become an issue or may not                 
  ever become an issue.  Also, the state of Maryland has                       
  enacted such a provision and as of, as far as I know and I                   
  just saw the law today, as far as I know, it hasn't been                     
  challenged and struck down  as unconstitutional.  The state                  
  of Maryland probably does not have an equal protection                       
  clause that is as strong as the Alaska equal protection                      
  clause and does not have a court -- well they possibly might                 
  have an Alaskan Supreme Court that has sometimes been                        
  classified as judicially  active  in this area.  So I guess                  
  I could offer those two provisions as being the two main                     
  ones that you might want to look at to basically solve this                  
  potential problem.                                                           
  "Mr. Chairman, Representative Nordlund had earlier asked                     
  about program receipts and separate accounting.  In 1991 -                   
  1992, the legislature adopted a general program receipts                     
  language that provides for all money that comes into the                     
  state - into the state coffers - that's received by any                      
  state agency, must be separately accounted for.  And so that                 
  money is.  It's AS 37.05.142 is one of the citations.  The                   
  money is separately accounted for now.  All money that comes                 
  into the state.  There is an account number given to that                    
  money and we can identify that money, even when it gets                      
  deposited in the general fund.  We can identify the program                  
  source of that money.  The term program receipts gets                        
  confusing at times because of the way we think of it and the                 
  way its used in the budget on the front pages, is the way we                 
  appropriate the money out and it's usually to the same                       
  program.  For example, fees that are received by DMV                         
  (Division of Motor Vehicles), a certain amount of that gets                  
  appropriated back to the Department of Public Safety to run                  
  DMV operations.  But it's not a program receipt just when it                 
  gets sent back to that same program that collected the                       
  money.  It's a program receipt when its collected by the                     
  state and some program - it gets identified with that                        
  particular program that collected the money.  The                            
  legislature, then, can without doing anything else, they can                 
  just say that they'll appropriate it back to the agency that                 
  it received it, if they wanted to.  There's a way to ease                    
  the pressure on the legislature when they're appropriating                   
  these program receipts.  The legislature doesn't have to do                  
  that though.  But the money will be separately accounted                     
  for.  There was a proposal, I believe, that was discussed                    
  for a little while that had this money be separately                         
  accounted for and then have it be appropriated -- or for the                 
  legislature, basically, to be putting in a little bit of                     
  intent language into the bill to say that the legislature                    
  may use this money every year to partially fund the                          
  operations of ATMC (The Tourism Marketing Council).  And                     
  that's not in  the bill, at this time.  But there's nothing                  
  to stop the legislature from doing that, if they chose to.                   
  There's no way for the legislature to require the                            
  legislature in the future to do that either, because that                    
  would be a dedicated fund and we'd also have problems with                   
  one legislature trying to tie the purse strings of a future                  
  Number 730                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested adopting these two issues                          
  separately, but conceptually, and move two conceptual                        
  amendments.  One that would include the requirement as                       
  Maryland has for a capacity of 300 people and foreign port,                  
  and another one that would include the wish that the                         
  legislature may appropriate funds.                                           
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON commented that because it was                        
  getting late in the session, and the committee had not done                  
  well with conceptual amendments, as well as conceptual                       
  letters of intent, and since these are separate issues                       
  questioned why they couldn't come back to the board next                     
  year with these things so they could get this on its way.                    
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated there was not reason why                      
  someone couldn't prepare these amendments overnight and the                  
  committee could meet the next morning to adopt them.                         
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said the committee could adopt what he had                   
  previously stated, conceptually, and pass them and pass it                   
  along tomorrow.                                                              
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT thought the committee and heard some                     
  good comments on how to tighten up the language on the                       
  definition and he particularly liked the overnight cabin                     
  accommodations for a minimum of 300.  He asked if Mr. Dow                    
  from Princess could give the committee a brief overview as                   
  to who might be applying for these permits within the                        
  parameters -- who could have applied previously.                             
  Number 747                                                                   
  MR. DOW explained who could have applied for these permits                   
  under previous law, per Representative Kott's request.  He                   
  said he thought the 300 people limit would resolve the                       
  problem of charters to nowhere from coastal communities.  As                 
  far as originating and terminating in a foreign port, all of                 
  the large vessels operating in Alaska right now, are by                      
  definition, doing that.  There have been American bottom                     
  vessels operating between Alaskan ports for years and years                  
  in Alaska, coming in and out of Juneau, and so forth, that                   
  could have operated casinos on board for the last 20 years.                  
  None of them ever have.  There was no known prohibition                      
  until this Attorney General's Opinion last fall.  He                         
  believed it to be a potential or theoretical problem.  He                    
  thought the likelihood of it occurring is almost zero.                       
  There is a three year sunset on this bill, and it would take                 
  that long for somebody to purchase and get a vessel in place                 
  and operate it anyway, but the 300 person rule would take                    
  care of a majority of the problems.  He is not against small                 
  ship operators going between Alaskan ports on behalf of                      
  Princess.  He thinks they certainly have a place in the                      
  trade.  There are certainly passengers and customers that                    
  want that kind of an experience, and they deliver a valuable                 
  asset to the industry and to Alaska.                                         
  Number 781                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS moved an amendment.  She put it as                   
  number 4, under line 16, if nobody has a problem with it                     
  going there.  The amendment would read, "This exemption                      
  applies only to cruise ships whose passenger capacity is 300                 
  or greater, and to those whose port of call is outside the                   
  state of Alaska."                                                            
  Number 786                                                                   
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said he would split those up in two different                  
  spots.  He would say, "If the cruise ship operates under an                  
  itinerary that either originates or terminates in a foreign                  
  port outside of the United States," (that is what Maryland                   
  says).  Then he said he would take the 300 cabin                             
  accommodations language, and using some language that Susan                  
  Burke likes, on page three, line 20, where we currently say,                 
  "provides on board the ship overnight cabin accommodations,"                 
  he would replace that language with the following language:                  
  "Cruise ship provides on board the ship overnight                            
  accommodations, for at least 300 passengers, and provides                    
  meals for those passengers."                                                 
  Number 798                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS clarified, "overnight accommodations                 
  and meals for at least 300 passengers."                                      
  MR. DOW commented that there are several ships that operate                  
  to Alaska that cruise round-trip San Francisco or round-trip                 
  Seattle.  They don't originate or terminate in either                        
  Vancouver, Seward, Anchorage, or Homer or wherever.  He                      
  didn't believe it was Representative Phillips' intent to                     
  exclude those ships that are coming from San Francisco,                      
  going all the way up, and then going back to San Francisco,                  
  because the Jones Act or more specifically, the Passenger                    
  Service Act, allows for if they're originating and                           
  terminating in the same port, the foreign bottom vessels can                 
  do that.  He knew that Princess had one of those vessels,                    
  but they don't let passengers off until they get the                         
  passengers back to San Francisco, so it's a 10 or 14 day                     
  round trip cruise.  So if the language were to read                          
  "originates or terminates outside Alaska"...                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS inquired if that would replace "port                 
  of call outside the state."                                                  
  MR. LUCKHAUPT clarified, after a brief discussion, that the                  
  language should state, "...the itinerary of the cruise                       
  originates or terminates in a port outside of the state of                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if all of the ships for which                  
  we are seeking exemption are at least 300 passenger vessels,                 
  and if there were any that would be smaller in size.                         
  Number 823                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said they were all at least 300 passenger                    
  vessels, and in the past 20 years, there have not been                       
  smaller vessels in that category of boats originating and                    
  terminating outside of Alaska.                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Luckhaupt for an explanation of                    
  the amendment, so they could make a motion to move it.                       
  Number 830                                                                   
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said on page 3, following line 16, a new                       
  paragraph four would read, "The cruise ship operates under                   
  an itinerary that either originates or terminates in a port                  
  outside of the state."                                                       
  Number 844                                                                   
  MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that the second amendment would                      
  occur on page two, page three, and on page four.  The                        
  definitions of cruise ship would be amended on page three,                   
  line 20 to read, following the word "provides", delete                       
  through the end of the line, and insert this language:                       
  "...on board the ship, overnight accommodations for at least                 
  300 passengers, and provides meals for its passengers."                      
  Number 858                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked why you could not just say                     
  that it provides meals and overnight accommodations for more                 
  that 300 passengers.  That is a lot better.                                  
  Number 860                                                                   
  MR. LUCKHAUPT stated his concern he had with Susan Burke                     
  about that is that sometimes the vessels will not be full,                   
  and we want to say they have accommodations for 300 people.                  
  But, for example, especially earlier and later in the year,                  
  the cruise ship may not be full, and so, it may only have                    
  250 people on the cruise, but they have accommodations for                   
  300; so we want to word it in that sort of nebulous way.                     
  TAPE NO. 94-68, SIDE A                                                       
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER thought it should say, "overnight                            
  accommodations for at least 300 people."  He then asked if                   
  the committee understood the amendment.                                      
  Number 013                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said no, he did not understand it.                   
  Number 015                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER went through the amendment again, explaining                 
  that under line 16 and number 4, on page three; the                          
  amendment would say, "The cruise ship operates under an                      
  itinerary that either originates or terminates outside the                   
  state of Alaska."  For the definition of cruise ship, which                  
  appears on three different positions in the bill, we are                     
  adding to the definition, "provides on board ship overnight                  
  accommodations for at least 300 people."  We are adding "at                  
  least 300 people" wording to that definition.                                
  Number 035                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said he suspected they were hoping                   
  that cruise ships will never begin their cruise from Alaska,                 
  and go to San Francisco, and come back to Alaska.  This may                  
  never occur, but what are we really discouraging by                          
  inclusions of these kinds?  Things change quickly.                           
  Number 069                                                                   
  MR. DOW said he understood the concern, but the language, as                 
  it is presently proposed in the amendment, if it either                      
  originates or terminates at a voyage, then you could                         
  originate a voyage in Alaska, and terminate it someplace                     
  outside the state, or vice versa.  There is nothing that                     
  precludes somebody beginning a voyage in Alaska.  About half                 
  of ours do, now.  We bring up people and drop them off and                   
  then we bring another load south, so we are doing that most                  
  of the time.  We only have one vessel that cruises round                     
  trip.  He thought this language would accommodate that.                      
  Number 090                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved the amendment as described.  There                 
  being no objection, the amendment was adopted.                               
  Number 105                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND moved amendment number 2.  He                        
  described it to state, as we talked about previously, the                    
  fees collected under this section may be appropriated for                    
  tourism promotion, and he did put in the language                            
  "...separately accounted for."  He said he knew that was                     
  redundant, and we already have it in law, and do not need to                 
  say it, but he thought it would help people understand what                  
  the intent is here.  He suggested they put it in the section                 
  right behind what the fee schedule would be and then the                     
  sections would be renumbered after that.                                     
  Number 120                                                                   
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said when we have attempted to do some                         
  language like this, it is probably best for us to say "the                   
  annual estimated balance in the account maintained for                       
  this."  Again, it is sort of this technical, in order to                     
  give some leeway to make that change, because he knew Dave                   
  Dierdorf would tell him it is all wrong if he tried to do it                 
  this way.  We will then put at the end of the amendment,                     
  "Nothing in this section constitutes a dedicated fund,"                      
  because when we have used the language -- the last time this                 
  issue reached the Alaska Supreme Court, when we used the                     
  language "may" in regards to the Alaska Marine Highway Fund,                 
  the argument was made to the court by saying "may", the                      
  legislature meant "may only" be used.   By using the term                    
  "may", that is what the legislature meant.  The court did                    
  not find for the state on that issue.  The court looked                      
  elsewhere in the Marine Highway Fund Act, and they had some                  
  language that said, "Nothing in this Act creates a dedicated                 
  fund."  That is what they hung their hat on, so what we are                  
  now doing to deal with that problem, is every time the                       
  legislature sets up one of these funds that looks like a                     
  dedicated fund, we now say that this is not a dedicated                      
  fund.  He asked the committee to allow him to add that, too.                 
  Number 160                                                                   
  SUSAN BURKE, Attorney representing Princess Cruise Lines,                    
  said that substantively, she did not think any of the cruise                 
  lines would have a problem with what Representative Nordlund                 
  wants to do, but a flag went off in her mind about whether                   
  or not the title of this bill is broad enough to cover                       
  Number 173                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested sending along a Judiciary                  
  letter of intent.                                                            
  Number 175                                                                   
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said that would be fine, and they recommend a                  
  letter of intent be included, since this language cannot be                  
  mandatory in future legislatures.  We are providing an                       
  exemption.  We are not really saying in the title of the                     
  bill what we are going to do with these fees.  He said he                    
  would have some hesitation on whether or not this amendment                  
  could fit in.  The only clause it could fit in is the one                    
  saying that we provide an exemption from gambling laws for                   
  gambling conducted by cruise ships for their ticketed                        
  passengers.  Is that something that would fit in there?                      
  Honestly, it does not fit really well.                                       
  Number 193                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said her concern is that this amendment                 
  says nothing.  It has no affect, except filling up more                      
  space in the statutes, and for that reason, even though she                  
  supports the intent, and she would support that we recognize                 
  it as so, she felt there is no place for this in the statute                 
  when it has no affect.  She thinks the statutes are to be                    
  showing us what we do and how we do it, and not what someone                 
  thinks we might ought to look into.  For those reasons, she                  
  thought we should try to get our statutes smaller instead of                 
  bigger, and for that reason she would object to it, even                     
  though she does not have any real problem with the content                   
  of it, as a statement.                                                       
  Number 213                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said we were unnecessarily                           
  cluttering up our statutes, and he thought it was important                  
  to keep in mind they have just a few days remaining.  If                     
  they get back to the other body with some of these issues,                   
  this bill could easily get lost in the shuffle, and we may                   
  not get a bill like this through in time.  He objected to                    
  the amendment and he certainly wanted to support tourism,                    
  but not like this for right now.                                             
  Number 227                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND withdrew his amendment, not                          
  necessarily because he thought it cluttered the statutes,                    
  but only because it would probably require a title change,                   
  and a concurrent resolution, and it is getting late here.                    
  He hoped the committee would adopt a letter of intent.                       
  Number 235                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was any objection or further                  
  discussion on the amendment.                                                 
  Number 236                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS wanted to discuss the federal law                    
  issue on this bill.                                                          
  Number 237                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Luckhaupt if he was correct in                     
  summarizing in the following manner:  One of the concerns                    
  expressed peripherally to this bill, is its potential affect                 
  relating to the Indian land gaming issue.  The gaming issue,                 
  if it exists in Alaska, is already open, because of that                     
  amount of gaming that the state does allow, and this would                   
  have no affect one way or another on that issue.                             
  Number 255                                                                   
  MR. LUCKHAUPT agreed that basically that was his opinion,                    
  but this bill will open the door for sure.  He thought there                 
  was some debate as to whether or not the door is currently                   
  open for class three casino type gambling, under the Indian                  
  Gaming Reform Act, the federal law.  There are basically two                 
  levels of Indian gaming you have to worry about under the                    
  Indian Gaming Reform Act.  One is bingo, pull-tabs and                       
  lottos.  The other is full scale casino gambling that                        
  happens to include lotteries.  The federal law says that if                  
  the state allows any person to conduct casino gaming in the                  
  state, then they have to allow the Natives or the Indians,                   
  in the case of the term used in the Act, to conduct casino                   
  type gambling on Indian lands.  Currently, in Alaska, the                    
  only casino gaming we allow at this time are those conducted                 
  by charitable organizations who are allowed to conduct one                   
  casino night a year.  The question was presented that at                     
  those casino nights you do not receive money in return; you                  
  receive script in return, and then you can use that script                   
  to purchase prizes at the end of the evening.  It is not                     
  really casino gaming, and so there is the a possibility that                 
  the state could have an argument to preclude casino gaming                   
  by Indians on Indian lands, under that argument.  The                        
  problem with that ties in with the fact that the federal                     
  government classifies lotteries as being the same thing as                   
  casino gaming.  They do allow lotteries in the state of                      
  Alaska currently by charitable organizations and                             
  municipalities; the Nenana Ice Classic is a perfect example,                 
  to the extent that it opens the door to full scale casino                    
  gaming, the door is already open.                                            
  Number 300                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that having had some degree of exposure                 
  to gaming regulations and laws, the [inaudible] met by Monte                 
  Carlo night.  It is like sitting down to a commercial poker                  
  game.  You walk in with your money, and you buy the chips,                   
  and you play poker with the chips, and then you take your                    
  chips and return them to money.  You walk into a charity                     
  night at the soroptimist club, you buy the script, you go                    
  play all these games with the script, and then you turn the                  
  script into something of value, albeit, donated prizes, it                   
  is something of value.  That is gambling.  We already allow                  
  Number 320                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said he would like to move the bill.                 
  Number 325                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about section six under required                   
  disclosures, since it might come close to infringing on the                  
  first amendment, commercial speech is now protected.  He                     
  asked if this particular section was a reasonable regulation                 
  of speech.                                                                   
  Number 368                                                                   
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said this is what the first speaker was                        
  talking about; the total about face the bill does, basically                 
  to deal with promotions.  He said in his personal view, his                  
  office has not had a problem with this.  This would be                       
  something reasonable by the state to protect the interest of                 
  the local businesses, and prevent those businesses from                      
  being somewhat unfairly labelled during these on-board                       
  promotions, or being unfairly classified as being                            
  untrustworthy, or something like that.  The argument has                     
  been that these promotions, by mentioning certain                            
  businesses, that even though in your mind, it did not work,                  
  it leaves the impression that other businesses that are not                  
  mentioned are not trustworthy; that they have had problems                   
  with those businesses.  He did not see this as being, under                  
  the first amendment analysis, that the U.S. Supreme Court                    
  has articulated, he did not necessarily see a problem here.                  
  Again it would be one of those issues that, if it was                        
  presented to the court at some time, potentially, it would                   
  live and die on its merits, and would basically be severed                   
  from this total Act at some point in time.  In his review he                 
  could not see this as an unreasonable restriction by the                     
  state on first amendment speech.  It can include commercial                  
  speech.  He did not know of any other state that had a                       
  similar restriction.  He said this type of promotion has not                 
  occurred in any other state yet.  Cruise ships have used                     
  this in other foreign ports, but have not attempted to use                   
  it in the U.S. yet, except last year when Coastal Cruises                    
  used it, and they received a lot of grief about using it.                    
  Number 378                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented there is not a state in the                   
  lower 48 who would let them get away with this.  She said                    
  she felt whatever advertising program the ships have should                  
  have to include anybody that wants to be in it, not                          
  selectively.  She said those were just her comments, and she                 
  was not going to make an issue of it.                                        
  Number 390                                                                   
  MS. BURKE wanted to make one brief comment on the Indian                     
  Gaming Act issue.  She agreed with Chairman Porter that we                   
  are long past the issue of whether Alaska allows class three                 
  gaming activities, and therefore whatever is in this bill is                 
  going to have no affect whatsoever on Indian gaming.                         
  However, much more important than her opinion, but less                      
  important than Chairman Porter's, is that of the Attorney                    
  General's Office.  She had spoken with Vince Usera that                      
  morning about this issue.  They have already flatly come to                  
  the same conclusion that you, yourself have, and that is                     
  that they are not even going to make an issue out of the                     
  class three's, so he gave her permission to pass that on to                  
  the committee.                                                               
  Number 410                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON moved with unanimous consent HCS                     
  CSSB 370(JUD) out as amended, with individual                                
  recommendations, and fiscal note as attached, as amended.                    
  There being no objection, the bill was moved from committee.                 
  Number 420                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said there was one more bill, and introduced                 
  David Skidmore.                                                              
  SB 292 - INTERSTATE TRANSFERS OF INMATES                                     
  Number 425                                                                   
  DAVID SKIDMORE, staff for Senator Frank stated the bill was                  
  introduced by the Senate Finance Committee.  The                             
  Commissioner of the Department of Corrections currently has                  
  statutory authority to transfer inmates out of state.  There                 
  are two somewhat contrary standards in statute that                          
  determine whether that transfer may occur.  The one standard                 
  says that the commissioner can do it, unless the                             
  rehabilitation or treatment will be negatively impaired.                     
  The other standard says they cannot do it, if the                            
  rehabilitation will be better facilitated in Alaska.  In the                 
  past, two or three years ago, the department was thinking                    
  about transferring some inmates out of state.  This was                      
  something that their attorneys came up against and it caused                 
  a bit of trouble.  This bill just brings these two statutes                  
  into conformity.  The former standard that they can transfer                 
  the prisoners out of state, unless their rehabilitation or                   
  treatment will be negatively impaired; that standard is                      
  retained, and the other standard is deleted.                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE KOTT presumed this to mean we are just                        
  deleting one conflicting view, and leaving it very clear as                  
  to what we can do.                                                           
  Number 450                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move the bill out of                   
  committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal                    
  There being no objection, SB 292 was moved.                                  
  The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 5:15 p.m.                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects