Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/31/1995 01:03 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         March 31, 1995                                        
                           1:03 p.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                         
 Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Con Bunde                                                      
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 Representative Cynthia Toohey                                                 
 Representative David Finkelstein                                              
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 Representative Bettye Davis                                                   
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 HB 125:    "An Act relating to disclosures to school officials of             
            information about certain minors."                                 
            PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                            
 HB 199:    "An Act creating the crime of criminal transmission of             
            HEARD AND HELD                                                     
 HB 237:    "An Act relating to workers' compensation insurance rate           
            filings; to second independent medical evaluations for             
            workers' compensation claims; to immunity for third-               
            party design professionals from civil actions by                   
            recipients of workers' compensation benefits; to                   
            workers' compensation death benefits; to computation of            
            workers' compensation benefits; to penalties for                   
            fraudulent acts related to workers' compensation; to               
            immunity for employer workplace safety inspections                 
            related to workers' compensation insurance; and                    
            providing for an effective date."                                  
            PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                            
 HB 234:    "An Act relating to administrative adjudication under              
            the Administrative Procedure Act."                                 
            SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                            
 HB 130:    "An Act relating to the adoption, amendment, and repeal            
            of regulations."                                                   
            SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                            
 HB 10:     "An Act relating to payment for emergency services                 
            responding to certain motor vehicle accidents."                    
            SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                            
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 409                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-3878                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 199                                        
 DALE GOODLAW                                                                  
 Blood Bank of Alaska, Incorporated                                            
 4000 Laurel                                                                   
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  563-3110                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 199                                           
 MARGI MOCK, Supervisor                                                        
 Alaska Public Defender Agency                                                 
 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200                                                
 Anchorage, AK 99506                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  264-4400                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 199                                           
 DAVID TYLER                                                                   
 Alaska Fire Chiefs Association                                                
 1610 Hans Way                                                                 
 Fairbanks, AK 99709                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  479-5672                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 199                             
 DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director                                                  
 Division of Public Health                                                     
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 P.O. Box 110600                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-0600                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-3090                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 199                                           
 MARGARET BERCK, Attorney                                                      
 American Civil Liberties Union                                                
 227 7th Street                                                                
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  586-3309                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 199                                           
 DEAN GUANELI, Assistant Attorney General                                      
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-0300                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-3428                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on HB 199                           
 ALLEN KINGMAN, Administrative Assistant                                       
   to Representative Scott Ogan                                                
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 409                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-3878                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on HB 199                           
 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER                                                   
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 411                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-2647                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 237                                        
 ROYCE ROCK                                                                    
 407 Denali Street                                                             
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  276-3533                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 237                           
 MIKE SCHNEIDER, Attorney                                                      
 880 North Street, No. 202                                                     
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  277-9306                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 237                                 
 STEVE CONN                                                                    
 Alaska Public Interest Research Group                                         
 P.O. Box 101093                                                               
 Anchorage, AK 99510                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  278-2661                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 237                                 
 SCOTT MCENTIRE, Injured Worker                                                
 6560 East 16th Avenue                                                         
 Anchorage, AK 99504                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  377-8614                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 237                                 
 WILLIE VANHEMMERT, Management Section                                         
 Ad Hoc Committee                                                              
 1633 West 15th Avenue                                                         
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 562-3252                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on HB 237                           
 PAUL GROSSI, Director                                                         
 Division of Workers' Compensation                                             
 Department of Labor                                                           
 P.O. Box 25512                                                                
 Juneau, AK 99811-5512                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-2790                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on HB 237                           
 ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide                                                
 House Judiciary Committee                                                     
 State Capitol, Room 120                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4990                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on HB 237                           
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HB 125                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Toohey,Bunde,Phillips                     
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/26/95       143    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/26/95       143    (H)   HES, JUD                                          
 02/23/95              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/23/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 02/23/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 02/23/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/16/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/16/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/17/95       769    (H)   HES RPT  CS(HES)  2DP 1NR 2AM                     
 03/17/95       770    (H)   DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY                                 
 03/17/95       770    (H)   NR: G.DAVIS                                       
 03/17/95       770    (H)   AM: ROKEBERG, ROBINSON                            
 03/17/95       770    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (COURT)                               
 03/17/95       770    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DOE, DHSS)                   
 03/17/95       792    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS                            
 03/29/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 03/29/95              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/31/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 199                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL TRANSMISSION OF HIV                                     
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN                                            
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 02/27/95       487    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/27/95       487    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                 
 03/07/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/07/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/14/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/14/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/15/95       737    (H)   STA RPT  CS(STA) 2DP 1DNP 3NR                     
 03/15/95       737    (H)   DP: GREEN, OGAN                                   
 03/15/95       737    (H)   DNP: ROBINSON                                     
 03/15/95       737    (H)   NR: JAMES, PORTER, WILLIS                         
 03/15/95       737    (H)   INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                   
 03/15/95              (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM, CORR)                   
 03/29/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 03/29/95              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/31/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 237                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENTS                                 
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER BY REQUEST,Porter                        
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 03/06/95       597    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/06/95       598    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                       
 03/08/95       630    (H)   JOURNAL CORRECTION                                
 03/15/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 03/15/95              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 03/17/95       775    (H)   L&C RPT 3DP 3NR                                   
 03/17/95       776    (H)   DP: ROKEBERG, KOTT, PORTER                        
 03/17/95       776    (H)   NR: MASEK, KUBINA, ELTON                          
 03/17/95       776    (H)   3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES(DCED,LABOR,ADM)               
 03/29/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 03/29/95              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/31/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 234                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS                                     
 SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 03/06/95       590    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/06/95       590    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                          
 03/06/95       591    (H)   14 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM,DEC,F&G)                
 03/06/95       591    (H)   (DHSS, LABOR, LAW, DPS, DOT)                      
 03/06/95       591    (H)   (4-DCED, 2-DOE)                                   
 03/06/95       591    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                     
 03/08/95       665    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 3/8/95                     
 03/14/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/14/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/16/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/16/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/18/95              (H)   STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/18/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/20/95       810    (H)   STA RPT  3DP 1NR                                  
 03/20/95       810    (H)   DP: JAMES, GREEN, ROBINSON                        
 03/20/95       810    (H)   NR: IVAN                                          
 03/20/95       810    (H)   14 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (4-DCED,2-DOE)               
 03/20/95       810    (H)   (ADM,DEC,F&G,DHSS,LABOR,LAW,DPS)                  
 03/20/95       810    (H)   (DOT) 3/6/95                                      
 03/20/95       810    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 3/8/95                     
 03/31/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 130                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, James                                    
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/27/95       157    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/27/95       157    (H)   STA, JUD, FIN                                     
 02/14/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519                       
 02/14/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/14/95              (H)   ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/15/95       396    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): JAMES                               
 02/21/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/21/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/21/95              (H)   ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH RM 205                  
 02/22/95              (H)   ARR AT 04:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/22/95              (H)   MINUTE(ARR)                                       
 02/22/95              (S)   MINUTE(ARR)                                       
 02/23/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/23/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/09/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/16/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/16/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/18/95              (H)   STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/18/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/20/95       805    (H)   STA RPT  1DP 2NR 1AM                              
 03/20/95       805    (H)   DP: JAMES                                         
 03/20/95       805    (H)   NR: GREEN, IVAN                                   
 03/20/95       805    (H)   AM: ROBINSON                                      
 03/20/95       806    (H)   5 FISCAL NOTES (3-GOV, DHSS, DPS)                 
 03/20/95       806    (H)   INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                   
 03/20/95       806    (H)   3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM,GOV,DNR)                 
 03/22/95       840    (H)   CORRECTED STA RPT CS(STA) NT 2DP                  
                             2NR 1AM                                           
 03/22/95       841    (H)   DP: JAMES, PORTER                                 
 03/22/95       841    (H)   NR: GREEN, IVAN                                   
 03/22/95       841    (H)   AM: ROBINSON                                      
 03/22/95       841    (H)   5 FNS (3-GOV, DHSS, DPS) 3/20/95                  
 03/22/95       841    (H)   INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                   
 03/22/95       841    (H)   3 ZERO FNS (ADM, GOV, DNR) 3/20/95                
 03/31/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB  10                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: PAYMENT OF COSTS OF DWI ACCIDENTS                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DAVIES,Green                                    
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/06/95        23    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        23    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        23    (H)   STA, JUD, FIN                                     
 03/18/95              (H)   STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/18/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/20/95       802    (H)   STA RPT  4DP                                      
 03/20/95       803    (H)   DP: JAMES, GREEN, IVAN, ROBINSON                  
 03/20/95       803    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCED, LAW)                   
 03/20/95       824    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): GREEN                               
 03/22/95       835    (H)   CORRECTED STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 1NR                 
 03/22/95       835    (H)   DP: GREEN, IVAN, JAMES, ROBINSON                  
 03/22/95       835    (H)   NR: PORTER                                        
 03/22/95       835    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCED, LAW)                   
 03/31/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 95-39, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:03            
 p.m. on Wednesday, March 31, 1995.  Representative Bettye Davis was           
 absent.  All other members were present.  The hearing was                     
 teleconferenced to Anchorage, Fairbanks and Barrow.  CHAIRMAN BRIAN           
 PORTER stated that the following bills would be heard:  CSHB 125,             
 CSHB 199, HB 237, HB 234 and HB 130.                                          
 CSHB 125 - JUVENILE CRIMINAL RECORDS TO SCHOOLS                             
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained the status of CSHB 125(JUD), Version W,             
 dealing with criminal records being disclosed to schools.  It                 
 incorporates what the committee wants to see happen in terms of law           
 enforcement, which is for the Division of Family and Youth Services           
 (DFYS) and schools to get together to establish a process for                 
 exchanging information that would be timely and also meet their               
 individual needs.  Sometimes mandatory actions are not timely, due            
 to the fact that they are mandatory and have to be reviewed by                
 layers of bureaucracy.  That is our goal, and this version will               
 hopefully guide agencies toward those provisions.                             
 Number 080                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to adopt CSHB 125 (JUD)/W,             
 as the working draft.  Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made the motion to move the bill out of                  
 committee as described.  Seeing no objection, CSHB 125(JUD)/W moved           
 out of the House Judiciary Committee.                                         
 CSHB 199 - CRIMINAL TRANSMISSION OF HIV                                     
 Number 110                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, bill sponsor, introduced HB 199.  He               
 stated this bill would make it illegal for a person who knowingly             
 has HIV and commits an act known to transmit HIV or AIDS to another           
 person, commits a class A felony.  Acts that will be illegal will             
 include sexual contact, deliberately exposing someone to bodily               
 fluids, donating organs or blood, or using non-sterile devices and            
 needles.  The reality of the issue is that if a person is                     
 unknowingly exposed to this virus, it is likely to be a death                 
 sentence.  People infected with HIV have a grave responsibility to            
 the people they interact with.  This law would provide recourse for           
 people involuntarily exposed to HIV as well as provide protection             
 to unsuspecting people with high risk behaviors.  The largest                 
 single group acquiring this disease today is young people, and                
 often they are reckless.  Once the word gets around that HIV                  
 transmission is a crime, this reckless behavior will hopefully                
 decline dramatically.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if we were talking about version G of              
 the committee substitute (CS).                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE answered, yes, the State Affairs CS.                     
 Number 175                                                                    
 DALE GOODLAW, Blood Bank of Alaska, Incorporated, testified via               
 teleconference.  He had serious concerns as the bill relates to               
 blood donors throughout the state, and the donation of blood in               
 general.  We have donors here that donate blood for their own                 
 surgery.  These donors pre-deposit their blood for use during their           
 surgery, and that can be up to five pints of blood.  This bill                
 would prohibit that from occurring, therefore we would not be                 
 rendering health care to our patients.  It has been medically                 
 justified that these patients seem to do better when they receive             
 their own blood.  Another concern is the question of what exactly             
 qualifies as a positive test for HIV.  Here, at the blood bank, we            
 are under federal guidelines.  We test all of our blood for the HIV           
 antibody.  We first apply a screening test, followed up by a                  
 Western Blot Test.  The Western Blot we have to use is a Food and             
 Drug Administration (FDA) licensed test.  If there is any banding,            
 the result means either indeterminate or a true positive.  The                
 banding has to follow a certain pattern before they are allowed to            
 call it indeterminate.  But if there is any banding that could                
 result in a false positive, then they have to call that                       
 indeterminate.  At that point, based on this bill, it would show              
 that the totality of the evidence would fall on transmitting the              
 HIV virus.  At what point in time would the donor fall into that              
 category?  That is the question.  We follow up on the Western Blot            
 tests later, to determine if the tests have turned to a true                  
 positive.  During that six month period, that donor would have had            
 knowledge that he may be infected with HIV.  Chances are he is not,           
 because we do have a lot of false positive banding with this                  
 Western Blot Test.  As high as 15 percent of all healthy                      
 individuals will show some banding on a Western Blot.  During this            
 six month waiting period, would this donor be required to notify,             
 for example, his dentist, that he may be infected with the HIV                
 virus?  These are questions that need to be addressed within this             
 bill for the protection of our blood donors and the general public            
 who contribute to the blood bank to supply our state's needs.                 
 Number 280                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked if this would discourage people from            
 giving blood.  He does not see any criminal activity or                       
 restrictions associated with giving blood in the bill.  Is the                
 concern here that it may be an intimidating factor to somebody who            
 wants to donate blood?                                                        
 MR. GOODLAW answered that yes, it would be intimidating.  There are           
 restrictions placed on donors right now, as a result of federal               
 activity through the FDA.  We have a means of pinpointing high risk           
 persons by going back to their past medical history, as well as               
 their current lifestyle, and past lifestyles as well.                         
 There is a risk that these donors may not be truthful on the                  
 questionnaires we give them.  We have worked very hard not to get             
 people into the center just for the purpose of being tested for               
 HIV.  We work very closely with the Department of Health for the              
 purpose of establishing alternative testing sites that we can refer           
 people to.  In addition to those restrictions, more importantly, we           
 will be adding one more restriction on top of that.  We would be              
 obligated to inform these donors that a positive test result, may             
 in fact result in criminal prosecution.  They may be criminally               
 investigated based on these test results.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why they would be criminally                       
 MR. GOODLAW gave the analogy of a person whose test may come back             
 as an indeterminate Western Blot.  An indeterminate is used to                
 follow a patient for the course of their HIV infectivity.  If there           
 is no advanced banding during that six months, we can rest assured            
 that the banding will not progress any further, based on the                  
 resources we have.  However, there is a possibility that the                  
 banding will actually result in a true HIV.  We cannot guarantee              
 that is not going to happen.  The way we counsel our donors after             
 we inform them of their indeterminate results, is to make contact             
 with these specialists.  From that point is where that six month              
 waiting period would actually come into play.  If these people do             
 develop the HIV virus and can actually transmit the virus, then               
 they would have had knowledge as early as six months prior to that,           
 that the possibility was there.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what percentage of people donate blood.            
 MR. GOODLAW answered that it is about 3 percent in Alaska.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought, then, that the percentage of people             
 whose tests showed some kind of positive banding would be very                
 small.  Are there really that many people in this category that a             
 blood donor would conceivably be guilty of a criminal activity?  He           
 felt anyone who was told that there was a possibility that they had           
 HIV would first think very carefully of how they interrelated to              
 other people.                                                                 
 MR. GOODLAW said there are certain bandings that are truly not                
 related to HIV activity, but we would not accept blood from those             
 types of persons.  The blood supply is still protected, but their             
 concern is for the donor.  With that knowledge of an indeterminate            
 HIV, that can progress on to a positive Western Blot.  During that            
 six month period, 15 percent of not truly infected people will show           
 a positive banding on that blot.  They never will be HIV positive,            
 but this one particular band will be with them for the rest of                
 their lives.                                                                  
 Number 425                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if a person is normally notified of            
 this banding pattern and put on standby for six months.                       
 MR. GOODLAW answered that no, once a person is determined to have             
 any banding in the blot test, they cannot come back and donate                
 blood except for their own use.  His concern is that this                     
 legislation would prohibit that donor from coming back into the               
 center to donate blood for autologous use.  Today, we do allow HIV            
 positive individuals to donate blood for their own use.                       
 Number 450                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if his concern was that these             
 people may not return for the confirmation that they were indeed              
 MR. GOODLAW answered that no, that was not it.  Once we have                  
 determined an indeterminate Western Blot, we turn them over to the            
 infectious disease specialist.  Our primary concern is with                   
 autologous donors, and under Section 7.66.160(2), it says                     
 "transfer, donate or provide the blood tissue..." et cetera.  Now,            
 autologous donation is still a blood donation.  Though, when we do            
 get the HIV positive individual in here to donate for their own               
 surgery, this bill would prohibit the individual from completing              
 that act, even though it is for themselves, and will be                       
 appropriately tagged and marked for use only by this person.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what citation he was talking about.                
 MR. GOODLAW said he was referring to SB 91.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he was looking at page 1, line 12-14                
 which makes it a felony to transfer to another.  There are vast               
 differences between the Senate bill and this House bill because               
 they have different sponsors, but we are not looking at the Senate            
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Goodlaw if he had the House bill.                   
 MR. GOODLAW stated he only had pages 2 and 3.                                 
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said they were referring to page 1, so that might             
 be where the misunderstanding lies.                                           
 Number 500                                                                    
 MARGI MOCK, Supervisor, Public Defender Agency, testified via                 
 teleconference.  She felt the intent behind the bill is good, with            
 the efforts to discourage transmission of the HIV virus.  This is             
 a positive step, but she did not feel that criminal law was the               
 best means to achieve the goal.  Based on the years she has been              
 working in the Public Defender Agency, penalizing this behavior               
 criminally, and providing for a five year presumptive jail sentence           
 could actually have a negative impact on the struggle to contain              
 HIV and AIDS.  Every health professional she has heard testifying             
 on this bill has concerns that this would actually discourage                 
 people from being tested.  Though health care is not her area of              
 expertise, health care professionals seem to feel the best way to             
 prevent the spread of HIV is with behavior modification through               
 education.  From a legal point of view, this bill will actually               
 discourage testing.  It has been her experience that if you punish            
 the behavior, either by incarceration or by taking children away              
 from pregnant mothers who have substance abuse problems, the result           
 is that you simply stop pregnant mothers from seeking prenatal                
 care.  Punishing the behavior would provide the opposite result of            
 what the state wants to achieve.  We have existing criminal                   
 statutes in Alaska that provide adequate means to punish someone              
 who either intentionally or recklessly transmits HIV.  Those carry            
 the same penalty as this proposed bill does.  You are convicted of            
 assault if you cause physical injury when you knowingly engage in             
 conduct or other circumstances that manifest indifference to the              
 value of human life.  That is exactly what we are talking about               
 here.  If someone knowingly infects another person, they can                  
 actually be prosecuted for attempted murder.                                  
 Number 570                                                                    
 DAVID TYLER, Alaska Fire Chiefs, testified via teleconference.  He            
 asked why we were limiting this to HIV when tuberculosis and                  
 hepatitis are equally real problems.  He had an emergency response            
 crew involved in a domestic dispute where there were knives                   
 involved, and these people did not want help at all.  Two troopers            
 and three medics were exposed to blood that night.  These people              
 were slinging their bloody bandages across the room that night as             
 weapons, and he was not able to get assault charges filed or                  
 Number 600                                                                    
 DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director, Division of Public Health, Department           
 of Health and Social Services, stated that the department is                  
 opposed to this bill or any similar legislation.  We are fully                
 convinced as public health people that this would discourage                  
 testing.  Though this activity has been criminalized in other                 
 states, and testing has not gone down in those states, the reason             
 testing is going up and will continue to do so, is that we are                
 requiring HIV testing for so many things these days.  For the very            
 high risk persons who we have to work with, those are the ones we             
 need to worry about cutting down exposure to the public, not the              
 majority of people who are infected with HIV.  The majority of                
 infected people are very responsible people.  They are not                    
 purposely out there exposing others to the disease.  By                       
 criminalizing it, and assuming that we would discourage testing,              
 we will not see those numbers reflected in the total number of                
 tests taken.                                                                  
 DR. NAKAMURA also stated that if an individual is already infected            
 with HIV, and if they expose another, and the individual exposed              
 becomes infected, you have every provision in the world to                    
 prosecute that individual.  Apparently the concern is that when an            
 infected individual exposes themselves to another, and that                   
 individual does not become infected, in reality you are never going           
 to know anyway.  Assuming that this is a consensual sexual act,               
 there is not going to be a complaint raised by the person who is              
 exposed.  He will never know, and so this bill in itself would not            
 increase your probability of identifying individuals who are                  
 exposing others without identifying their status.                             
 DR. NAKAMURA suggested a change in wording of the bill that would             
 make it less damaging.  On page 1, number 11, if the term                     
 "excluding perinatal transmission" were added to that statement,              
 "deliberately exposes a person's bodily fluid to the body of                  
 another person in a manner that could result in the transmission of           
 HIV, excluding perinatal transmission."  As stated, if a mother is            
 pregnant, has HIV and transmits the virus to her fetus, that would            
 be a criminal act.  The same would be true on line 14 where you               
 would add the same wording.                                                   
 DR. NAKAMURA made another suggestion on page 2, lines 6 and 7,                
 where it says, "the parties to the intimate sexual contact were               
 legally married at the time of contact."  He did not see where                
 legal marriage would have any significance to this issue at all, in           
 terms of consensual sexual acts.  From lines 14 to 19, we feel that           
 whole sentence would be unnecessary, since any individuals working            
 with patients who are bleeding or have bodily fluid that could be             
 exposed to others, are all taught how to handle individuals in                
 these circumstances.  You never know when an individual does not              
 meaningfully expose another person, whether they are HIV positive             
 or not.                                                                       
 CHAIRMAN PORTER pointed out that those lines Dr. Nakamura wanted to           
 delete are affirmative defenses.                                              
 DR. NAKAMURA just felt they were not necessary.                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Dr. Nakamura if they had the ability to           
 stop or prosecute criminal transmission of HIV.                               
 DR. NAKAMURA deferred that question to those better informed in               
 Number 700                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the state of research was for           
 the definition of sexual contact in the transmission of AIDS.  This           
 section on page 3 sounds like the sort of contact would include               
 general embracing and contact with bodily fluids, which he assumed            
 includes saliva.  What information exists on the transmission of              
 AIDS through saliva?                                                          
 DR. NAKAMURA answered that there have been a number of studies                
 showing that there has never been a demonstrated transmission of              
 the virus through saliva.  They have injected the virus into                  
 saliva, but they feel that there is something in the saliva which             
 seems to have the ability to keep out or at least lower the                   
 probability of transmission.  They have never been able to detect             
 a case where that has ever happened.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if Dr. Nakamura's use of the term            
 `bodily fluids' would include saliva.                                         
 DR. NAKAMURA answered that it would include saliva and excrement.             
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if that also includes feces and urine.            
 DR. NAKAMURA answered yes, it does.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY then asked what would happen to HIV/AIDS                
 babies that are being adopted to people who will care for them                
 until they die.  Does that make the child a criminal because there            
 is a possibility of transmitting the virus?                                   
 DR. NAKAMURA thought that was a legal question.                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said somebody knows, even though it may be a            
 far fetched question.                                                         
 MARGARET BERCK, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),              
 said the ACLU is opposed to this legislation, specifically on four            
 points.  One concern is that conduct addressed in this bill can be            
 prosecuted under existing law.  She had one client who appeared to            
 have been infected by another individual.  Ms. Berck brought that             
 to the attention of the District Attorney's Office and that young             
 woman was charged with a criminal offense.                                    
 MS. BERCK mentioned secondly, that the legislation that would make            
 this a class A felony offense would essentially discourage                    
 individuals from determining their status.  They would not seek               
 medical assistance or be tested.  Finally, there are privacy issues           
 involved, both for the defendant and the victims if this were to              
 become law.  If she were defending an individual under this                   
 offense, she would like to know an awful lot of information about             
 that victim.  The victim's privacy rights would come into play                
 during prosecution under such a statute.                                      
 MS. BERCK stated they believe that the amendments recommended by              
 Dr. Nakamura would make the bill more palatable.  She sees no                 
 purpose in the section which would provide an affirmative defense             
 to marital status.  If this bill is designed to encourage people to           
 be honest in their intimate sexual relations, somebody who marries            
 you and does not tell you that they have HIV, would be given                  
 essentially a free ride.  The bottom line with this legislation is            
 that it is going to end up killing more people than it saves.                 
 Number 800                                                                    
 DEAN GUANELI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,                  
 Department of Law, said that four years ago, the Department of Law            
 received an inquiry from the federal government asking whether or             
 not the criminal laws in Alaska could be used to punish someone who           
 had tried to spread the HIV virus.  He could not remember the exact           
 circumstances.  It may have been due to a federal funding question,           
 but the department had to certify that Alaska laws in fact did                
 permit that.  He took a look at our laws at the time and concluded            
 that indeed, there were criminal laws on the books that would allow           
 prosecution.  Certainly if someone intended to pass the virus, and            
 tried to do it, that would be attempted murder, which would be a              
 rare circumstance though we have had a couple of cases in the                 
 prisons where prisoners have tried to bite the guards, saying they            
 have HIV.  Those situations have been dealt with in the prison                
 disciplinary context.  If someone is simply reckless, there is a              
 criminal law to cover that.  It is called "reckless endangerment"             
 and is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to a year in jail.             
 What this bill does is take the kind of conduct that would be                 
 currently prosecutable under a misdemeanor offense and elevate it             
 from a class A misdemeanor, maximum one year in jail, to a class A            
 felony with a maximum of 20 years in jail on a presumptive term for           
 a first offense.  In other words, a term that would be imposed at             
 five years.  What has to be asked is, "What are we gaining by                 
 elevating that level of offense from a class A misdemeanor to a               
 class A felony."  And on the other side, "What might we be losing?"           
 MR. GUANELI said you have heard testimony that this kind of law               
 would discourage people from being tested, because once they are              
 tested and they know that they have the HIV virus, then one of the            
 elements of the offense is already proven and it might be easier to           
 prosecute them.  He did not know whether that would, in fact,                 
 occur, but there is a risk that it will, and you have to ask                  
 yourselves whether that risk is worth what we are getting in                  
 exchange.  With class A misdemeanor penalties of up to a year in              
 jail, a person who engages in this kind of conduct may or may not             
 get any jail time, but there is certainly a likelihood of being put           
 on probation.  Last year the legislature passed a provision                   
 increasing the amount of probation up to ten years.  At least the             
 justice system would then have some measure of control over this              
 person.  He thought that is what we really want to do, is to                  
 control the behavior without discouraging voluntary testing.  If              
 you end up with a case like this that is prosecuted and someone               
 goes to jail for ten years, you also have to ask yourself what the            
 cost would be to the state.  You are dealing with somebody who is             
 infected and if it develops into full blown AIDS, you have another            
 person in the correctional system who is running up huge bills for            
 the state to be treated for the AIDS virus, when that person could            
 be treated just as well, if not better, on the outside and at                 
 certainly less cost to the state.                                             
 MR. GUANELI felt there were some problematical aspects of this                
 bill, one being the affirmative defense of being married, as was              
 mentioned.  He felt that someday that circumstance may happen,                
 where someone gets married, and one spouse has not let the other              
 know that they have AIDS.  In an instance like that, you might                
 want to prosecute under the reckless endangerment misdemeanor                 
 offense.  Under this bill, we would not be able to do that.  This             
 bill specifically governs that conduct.  It creates an affirmative            
 defense and so we simply would not be able to prosecute that                  
 MR. GUANELI spoke of the provision that deals with deliberately               
 exposing your bodily fluids to another.  That should be looked at.            
 How realistic is it?  Are people going to say, "I have HIV," when             
 they start bleeding?  We have a situation in society where being a            
 homosexual is looked down upon, where there is a severe social                
 stigma for having the HIV virus, and to expect that when someone is           
 injured in an accident, or goes in for medical care, that they are            
 going to say, "Stay away from me, I have HIV."  He felt that was              
 simply unrealistic.  Take for example, Greg Luganis, who won the              
 gold medal for diving in the Olympics.  He injured his head in one            
 of his dives, and was sitting there trying to stem the flow of                
 blood and not telling anybody that he has HIV.  Does that mean he             
 has committed a class A felony, and that he ought to go to jail for           
 five years?                                                                   
 TAPE 95-39, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 MR. GUANELI felt the question should be raised as to whether or not           
 that is appropriate, or whether there may be some other way to take           
 care of the situation, and whether this is really a public health             
 problem and something that ought not to be a criminal justice                 
 problem.  He agreed with the public defender who testified about              
 the inability to control conduct through criminal justice means.              
 There is a lot of validity in what she said.  Because of the stigma           
 that has arisen because of this particular disease, it is                     
 unrealistic to think that people are going to act precisely in the            
 manner that this bill wants them to act.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY expressed her fright at the possibilities HB
 199 has.  She has very good friends who are hemophiliacs that are             
 children.  They have been infected, and this would make these                 
 children criminals.  This is going to make criminals of all of the            
 women in the villages who are being infected by their drunk                   
 husbands or boyfriends.  This is a very, very bad policy.                     
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the same way.  This subject is a              
 very tough one to deal with because this is one of the saddest                
 circumstances we face in our society today.  These people have a              
 death sentence to start with.  He asked Mr. Guaneli how many people           
 in Alaska fall into the category of those who flagrantly try to               
 intentionally transmit the virus.                                             
 MR. GUANELI answered that he was not aware of any in Alaska that              
 have intentionally tried to transmit the virus.  He had heard of              
 specific individuals who do not seem to care, but in the couple of            
 cases they have been involved in, it seems as though their partners           
 are certainly aware of the high level of risk involved.  Because of           
 that, and because it was determined that it was consensual contact            
 with awareness of the facts, we were not able to handle those                 
 cases, and this bill does not change that because it talks about a            
 level of knowledge or awareness.  We are trying to address these              
 cases as public health problems, trying to address this circle of             
 people that might come into contact with this person, trying to               
 tell them what the consequences could be.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked about the earlier testimony about the              
 people intentionally flinging their bloody bandages around, and the           
 gist was that maybe this bill should be expanded to contain other             
 highly contagious medical problems.  You earlier mentioned reckless           
 endangerment, and he assumed that would apply to someone who                  
 purposely tried to hit someone else with their bloody bandage if              
 they knew they had hepatitis.                                                 
 MR. GUANELI answered yes, that would apply.  The reckless                     
 endangerment statute is not limited, and it covers any kind of                
 reckless conduct.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if that has ever happened.                         
 MR. GUANELI said he was not aware of any cases, other than the HIV            
 ones.  It is kind of difficult to prosecute someone for an airborne           
 disease, such as tuberculosis.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY thought the fiscal note was not valid.  She             
 felt the cost would actually be much higher if you were paying                
 medical costs for incarcerated persons with AIDS.                             
 Number 250                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said with regards to the statement that they              
 take special precautions in situations involving inmates with HIV,            
 he had a discussion with a former director of a prison yesterday              
 who said they do not really know who has AIDS and who does not.               
 They had a list that the prison guards just kind of passed around,            
 warning the guards to be careful of certain inmates.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said they had testimony one day from the                
 Department of Corrections that said, yes, they did know how many              
 inmates have AIDS.  They test every inmate that goes into the                 
 prison system.  She may be wrong, but she was under the impression            
 that they know just how many HIV infected prisoners they have.                
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned that we have a real social dilemma             
 on our hands.  If the frequency of AIDS is increasing, the system             
 we have now is failing.  We do not seem to have this problem with             
 other diseases such as hepatitis.  We do not allow murder because             
 it is fatal, but that certainly does not prevent murder.  We do               
 have a law against it.  He wondered what Dr. Nakamura saw as the              
 best approach to this problem if voluntary testing is a failing               
 DR. NAKAMURA corrected him.  He did not say it is a failing                   
 situation, it is kind of like dealing with a smoker.  First you               
 have to know that they are smokers before you can deal with them.             
 There are certain smokers who have a great deal of difficulty                 
 dealing with the problem, but if you persist and persist, there is            
 a very good likelihood that you can either reduce their level of              
 smoking, or get them to actually stop.  It is harder for some than            
 for others to stop smoking, but you cannot deal with the problem              
 unless you know that they are a smoker.  It is the same with HIV              
 and AIDS.  You deal with all populations in trying to stop it, but            
 you really do have to focus on that high risk group.  If these                
 people do not come in for testing because they are afraid they will           
 be classified as a criminal, then they will not come in for testing           
 and we will not know they have HIV.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said HIV in some of the villages is epidemic,           
 primarily among males.  With the high incidence of alcohol among              
 the Native population and among the female population as well,                
 there has been testimony that in 20 years we will have nobody left            
 in the villages because they will all be dead from HIV because of             
 the sexual relaxation of the Natives.  She did not want to label              
 anybody with promiscuity, because it is not promiscuity, it is part           
 of their culture.  With that attitude, plus the alcohol, child                
 abuse, and sexual abuse of children and women in the villages; if             
 we criminalize this, it is not going to do any good except put the            
 blame on the victim, because the victim will then be labeled as a             
 criminal once they get tested.  She said she is so opposed to this            
 because it is going to be more destructive than constructive, and             
 she is very frightened of it.                                                 
 DR. NAKAMURA said he had a great deal of respect for Representative           
 Toohey, and therefore hated to correct her, but fortunately we do             
 not have an epidemic in our villages.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY added, "Yet."                                           
 DR. NAKAMURA said we are very fortunate.  The potential for great             
 transmission is there, primarily because of the small communities             
 involved.  He would not elude it to any difference in sexual                  
 practices, but there is no question that the potential is there for           
 massive spread and destruction.  Fortunately, at this point, we do            
 not have any major epidemics.  We do have the disease in the                  
 communities, that is true.                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if it takes an average of six months after              
 the time of being infected before you get a positive HIV test.                
 DR. NAKAMURA answered that it can vary but we say a minimum of six            
 months from the time of exposure until your last test, will give              
 you some level of comfort that you did not get infected.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that the testimony by the district              
 attorney referred to assault in the first degree.  The difference             
 between assault in the first degree is that assault in the first              
 degree requires that the conduct actually caused physical injury.             
 With our bill, if a person has HIV or AIDS and knowingly engages in           
 a behavior that could do it, they are guilty.  If I have a gun and            
 put five bullets in it, and I spin it around and point it at Al's             
 head and I pull the trigger, and it is a lucky day for both of us             
 and it falls on the empty cylinder, I think it is a fair assessment           
 that I be charged with attempted murder.  The prisons may test                
 those people, but they are not telling the guards who are the ones            
 dealing with it.  Health professionals do want to know whether or             
 not they have someone in their care with HIV or some of these other           
 diseases.  We heard testimony that an unconscious patient would               
 become a criminal.  That is covered in this bill.  It says if "the            
 defendant made efforts that were reasonable considering the                   
 circumstances to inform the medical professional..."  So if he is             
 unconscious in a car wreck and not able to tell the professional,             
 that is an affirmative defense.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked his aide, Allen Kingman, to address the             
 issue regarding marriage.                                                     
 ALLEN KINGMAN, Administrative Assistant to Representative Ogan,               
 stated there was testimony saying that if the parties were married,           
 this would permit the transmission of HIV without the victim                  
 knowing about it and being informed, but that is not the case in              
 our bill.  It requires that the spouse be notified that the                   
 infected person has HIV.                                                      
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the testimony indicated it is an                   
 affirmative defense, so the offenses you described are off of the             
 books, so to speak, if the parties to the intimate sex were legally           
 married at the time of contact.  It does not say anything about               
 MR. KINGMAN answered that it is a three part test.  A legal                   
 marriage is one part of the test, and the other part of the test is           
 in (b), the person exposed knew that the defendant was infected               
 with HIV, knew that the contact could result in transmission of               
 HIV, and voluntarily participated in the contact with the                     
 knowledge.  Marriage alone does not give someone grounds to                   
 transmit HIV to an unwilling spouse.  That would be criminal in our           
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said everyone who comes into the hospital and           
 has blood work done, gets tested for HIV.  The hospital knows that            
 unless that patient requests that information, they are not told,             
 so they could be walking out of there, being infected with HIV, and           
 the hospital is not allowed to tell them.  That is a privacy act.             
 The hospital, by law, cannot divulge that information unless it is            
 requested and the person goes through counseling, because it is so            
 Number 640                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment one, offered            
 by Representative Finkelstein, who had stepped out.  Amendment one:           
      Page 1, line 10:                                                         
           Delete "deliberately"                                               
           Insert "intentionally"                                              
 MR. GUANELI explained the effect of the amendment.  He was not                
 certain it would have a significant effect.  "Deliberately" is not            
 defined here, but it would probably be very close to                          
 "intentionally" in the Criminal Code.  It is our preference to use            
 terms that are defined.                                                       
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the sponsor would have an objection to               
 that amendment.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN answered no.                                              
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the amendment appears not to have a               
 major effect on the bill, except to add a term that has a                     
 definition, replacing a word having a speculative definition.                 
 Hearing no objection, Amendment One was passed.                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER offered Amendment two for discussion.  This is                
 basically the request that Dr. Nakamura had.  It would preclude               
 from culpability, under this statute, the transmission of the virus           
 from a mother to her unborn child.                                            
 Amendment two:                                                                
      Page 1, line 11, following "HIV":                                        
           Insert ", excluding perinatal transmission"                         
      Page 1, line 14, following "another":                                    
           Insert ", excluding perinatal transmission"                         
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN returned.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN took a neutral stand on the amendment.                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced there was no objection.  Amendment two              
 was adopted.                                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment three, which there had           
 already been discussion on.  He explained that there are many                 
 situations that are similar to a marriage situation, in which you             
 could have a violation of this also, so he agreed with Dr. Nakamura           
 that marriage should not be a factor to be considered.                        
 Amendment three:                                                              
      Page 2, lines 6 - 7:                                                     
           Delete all material.                                                
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained to Representative Finkelstein that while            
 he was gone, the committee discussed this.  It was determined that            
 (a) is not taken by itself, but (a), (b), and (c) are taken                   
 together because of the "and" on the end of line 10.  So if you               
 were legally married AND knew the defendant was infected, AND used            
 measures designed to protect, that would be the only exclusion.               
 So if you are against this proposition, you would probably want to            
 throw everything out, not just the one portion.                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN mentioned that if the amendment were to            
 be adopted, it would be a case where it was known AND the parties             
 used reasonable measures.  If you are in a circumstance where you             
 are doing that, regardless of whether you are married, we have to             
 remember that if (b) and (c) occurred, regardless of marital                  
 status, it would still be an affirmative offense.  Without                    
 objection Amendment three passed.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that he would have objected to that                 
 CHAIRMAN PORTER guessed that he would have.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment four:                            
      Page 1, line 9:                                                          
           Delete all material.                                                
           Insert "without the use of reasonable prophylactic                  
           measures designed to minimize the risk of transmission of           
           sexually transmitted disease;                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked how you could possibly determine             
 in a court what it means to engage in contact in a manner that                
 could result in the transmission of HIV.  He had asked a question             
 recently about saliva, and there is tons of information on all of             
 this, and it is a constantly changing thing.  There are no absolute           
 answers in any of it about which manners of sexual contacts could             
 result in the transmission of HIV.  You would have to be a medical            
 expert in order to be on top of that.  The only level that occurs             
 to anyone involved in these things is the level represented in the            
 amendment, which is, "without the use of reasonable prophylactic              
 measures designed to minimize the risk."  That is where the state             
 of this science is at.  All you can do is use the measures that are           
 available that are designed to minimize the risk.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wanted the committee to ask themselves a                  
 hypothetical question before voting on this amendment.  Would you             
 have sex with someone, if you knew they had HIV, using a                      
 prophylactic device?  I have made my case.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY answered, "Thank you.  I certainly would.  It           
 has been done for years with married couples.  There was a test               
 done in Sweden on a group of couples who had been married for many            
 years and they have not transmitted it to their partners."                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was objection to the amendment.                
 Hearing none, Amendment four passed.                                          
 Number 830                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that he would debate the bill, and           
 could not support it.                                                         
 CHAIRMAN PORTER gave a brief synopsis of what the current law                 
 allows.  Intentional is a class A felony.  Recklessly, and                    
 transferring it is a class B felony.  Knowingly having the contact,           
 but not necessarily transmitting it, is a class A misdemeanor.                
 TAPE 95-40, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said people could be charged for an assaultive           
 behavior under this, and he strongly opposed HB 199.  He pointed              
 out that they previously passed a bill which would let people with            
 AIDS out of prison early.  Now we want to take the people with AIDS           
 and put them back in.  He did not know where the revolving door               
 would stop, but it does appeal to his satirical sense of humor.               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about the zero fiscal note, and he                 
 agreed with Representative Toohey that there should be a fairly               
 large fiscal note.  He asked if that question could be answered.              
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY stated that the Department of Corrections               
 paid $587,000 for one longtime HIV positive inmate alone, in a two            
 month period.  Based on these types of cases, she felt they had not           
 been given a proper fiscal note from Corrections or Law.  We need             
 to be honest with this, and it will be expensive if we put them               
 back in prison.  She also felt that philosophically, David                    
 Finkelstein was right on.  If people will stop being tested because           
 they are afraid of being labeled a criminal, there are enough laws            
 on the books to prosecute those few who transmit the disease on               
 purpose.  We need to keep people coming in to be tested in order to           
 prevent the spread of the virus.  She feels very strongly about               
 this as a nurse.                                                              
 CHAIRMAN PORTER closed the hearing on HB 199 and asked what the               
 wish of the committee was.  HB 199 was held for lack of motion.               
 HB 237 - WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENTS                                   
 Number 140                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, sponsor of HB 237, introduced the                
 bill.  Sponsor statement:                                                     
 "For the past 13 years, the Ad Hoc Committee on Workers'                      
 Compensation, a private citizen initiative group with                         
 representatives from both management and labor associations from              
 around the state, has been working to find solutions to the                   
 concerns surrounding Alaska's Workers' Compensation system.                   
 Through their efforts the Ad Hoc Committee has been very                      
 instrumental in getting several pieces of major workers'                      
 compensation reform passed by the legislature.                                
 "In October of 1993, the Ad Hoc Committee began meeting regularly             
 and came up with the framework of what is now House Bill 237.  The            
 Ad Hoc Committee addressed six specific problem areas in Alaska's             
 workers' compensation laws and came up with solutions agreeable to            
 both labor and management.  The six issues dealt with by the Ad Hoc           
 Committee and now House Bill 237 are:  Death benefit revision;,               
 immunity for workplace safety inspections (also known as Van                
 Biene); design professional construction site liability limit;              
 contractor premium adjustable rate; determination of spendable                
 weekly wages (also known as Gilmore); and workers' compensation             
 fraud.  Attached to this sponsor statement is a letter from the Ad            
 Hoc Committee giving a break down of these six issues.                        
 "It is my hope that the effort put forth by this group will be                
 recognized for its importance and House Bill 237 will be accepted             
 without change."                                                              
 The six sections mentioned above, addressed by the Ad Hoc                     
 Committee, are as follows:                                                    
      - DEATH BENEFIT REVISION - The current death benefit has a               
      ten-year cap and also calls for the reduction of benefits at             
      the five and eight year time frame.  Although the ten year cap           
      is still retained to control the cost of claims, it was                  
      suggested that the reduction intervals could create hardships            
      for a surviving spouse with small children.  It has been                 
      estimated that the elimination of the five and eight year                
      reductions will result in an average premium increase of 0.6             
      - VAN BIENE - This portion of the bill provides immunity for             
      insurance carriers, trade associations and other persons                 
      providing work site safety inspections.  These inspections are           
      often voluntary and are conducted in the interest of promoting           
      safety in the workplace.  Without this immunity, many of the             
      workplace safety inspections will be curtailed to the                    
      disadvantage of both employees and employers.                            
      Design professionals (i.e. architects, engineers and land                
      surveyors) have limited involvement at the construction site             
      with their main function being periodic observation for                  
      conformance to design requirements.  While the role of design            
      professionals is clearly defined in contract language, they              
      have been drawn into lawsuits based simply on their presence             
      at the site.                                                             
      The proposed statute still allows the injured employee of the            
      contractor to bring suit against the design professional based           
      on negligent plans and specifications.  However, the statute             
      prevents the more general charge of professional negligence              
      through failing to detect potentially dangerous conditions               
      during observation of construction.  The recognition and                 
      correction of such conditions is the sole responsibility of              
      the construction contractor who has control of the work.                 
      Fourteen other states provide a similar immunity, with eight             
      states utilizing nearly identical language.                              
      - CONTRACTOR PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT RATE - The construction                  
      industry has long sought a more equitable method of                      
      distributing the cost of workers' compensation premiums.  With           
      the large variance in pay scale, higher paying employers pay             
      a larger cost for workers' compensation although some costs              
      related to injuries are fixed regardless of wage (e.g.                   
      medical, vocational rehabilitation).  To bring about a more              
      equitable system, twelve states have adopted regulations                 
      establishing a premium adjustment program for the contracting            
      classifications.  The process is handled administratively by             
      the rate setting authority.                                              
      -DETERMINATION OF SPENDABLE WEEKLY WAGES - A recent Supreme              
      Court decision in the Gilmore case has resulted in confusion           
      regarding the calculation of compensation benefits.  The                 
      proposed legislation provides a fair, efficient and                      
      predictable method of calculating compensation benefits.  The            
      methods developed are patterned after model language suggested           
      by the court in the Gilmore ruling.  The legislation                   
      recognizes the importance of establishing a fair approximation           
      that does not rely on various litigation for both the injured            
      worker and their employers.                                              
      - FRAUD - The revised section broadens the definition of                 
      misrepresentation and gives the Board the authority to order             
      reimbursement of monies fraudulently obtained.                           
 ROYCE ROCK testified via teleconference.  He said Representative              
 Mulder stated the bill perfectly.  There has been a lot of work               
 between labor and management, and we have a good balance from both            
 sides on this.  He urged the committee's support on HB 237.                   
 Number 250                                                                    
 MIKE SCHNEIDER, Attorney, testified via teleconference.  He                   
 previously handled a lot of workers' compensation cases.  He                  
 commented on Section 3 of the bill - Immunity for third party                 
 design professionals.  We have several liability laws, under which            
 you only pay your assessed percentage of fault, and thus there is             
 no reason to give immunity to anyone.  Responsibility is the order            
 of the day, and there is no real reason to eliminate someone's                
 responsibility for their own negligent or wrongful conduct.  He has           
 a huge problem with Section 3, because if you did not have the                
 factors listed in (b) (1 -3), you would not have a claim against a            
 third party design professional anyway.  We need to look at what              
 this is going to accomplish.  The real problem is in Section 9.               
 There is no evidence he is aware of that safety inspections are not           
 being performed, or that those performing them are being sued with            
 regularity.  We have immunized the insurance industry and trade               
 associations, under this bill, from getting stuck with more than              
 their percentage of fault.  There is no reason to do this.  It                
 gives them a benefit that none of the rest of us are entitled to.             
 Number 330                                                                    
 STEVE CONN, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG)                    
 testified via teleconference, speaking of the problems within the             
 bill.  The workers' compensation system needs a massive overview.             
 This bill leaves out matters such as penalties for fraudulent or              
 misleading acts.  There are a great deal of fraudulent attempts to            
 receive workers' compensation benefits in this state.  What we are            
 not seeing, is whether or not employers are paying their premiums.            
 He felt portions of the section would end up being used by claims             
 adjusters to batter injured workers.  Injured workers have been               
 left out of the dialogue, but we are going to make sure that                  
 changes.  He felt this bill was an inadequate reflection of the               
 problems that exist, and suggested it be held over, until the                 
 legislature can convene a commission to take a brand new look at              
 workers' compensation.  The system does not deliver what it                   
 promises to, in exchange for civil litigation.                                
 Number 450                                                                    
 SCOTT MCENTIRE, injured worker, testified via teleconference.  He             
 explained how after he went through seven pre-hearings, both sides            
 represented by attorneys, he asked the board what he could do to              
 resolve his case, and their only response was to schedule another             
 pre-hearing.  He hoped the committee would take the time to read              
 the letter he had sent.  In that letter, he mentioned the fact that           
 the board is well aware that the workers' compensation established            
 in Alaska violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), yet             
 this Ad Hoc Committee seemed to fail to address that problem.  He             
 understood that the workers' compensation system is supposed to be            
 reviewed by the Workers' Compensation Board, the Division of                  
 Workers' Compensation, Legislative Attorneys, Legal Counsel, and              
 the Administrator of the Regulation Review Commission.  They have             
 all failed to correct this problem.  Another problem is using the             
 third edition of the (American Medical Association (AMA)                      
 guidelines.  The statute for those injuries would appear to be                
 covered underneath that guideline, yet they are not.  They are                
 covered under the 1965 American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.               
 The statutes would award him with 25 percent more if he moved to              
 San Jose, California.  He considers these to be problems that he              
 would like to see addressed.                                                  
 Number 525                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE told Mr. McEntire that he understands that he            
 is going through the system, and is probably justifiably                      
 frustrated.  He wanted Mr. McEntire to know that he has taken great           
 personal offense to a statement on page 4 of Mr. McEntire's letter.           
 He quoted, "Perhaps the Judiciary Committee could take time to read           
 the bill and ponder the implications instead of just sounding out             
 the words."  Representative Bunde said that impugns the integrity             
 of this entire committee, and he is sorry, but it does not add to             
 his enthusiasm for accepting Mr. McEntire's point of view.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Mr. McEntire if he was working now.               
 MR. MCENTIRE said no, he had not been released by his doctor to               
 return to work yet.  It had been three years since his injury.                
 Number 500                                                                    
 WILLIE VANHEMMERT, Manager, Ad Hoc Committee, testified via                   
 teleconference.  He said there had been requests for changes which            
 they have tried to deal with on an individual basis.  He commented            
 that he really had no testimony to give, but was available for any            
 questions the committee might have.                                           
 PAUL GROSSI, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,                     
 Department of Labor, was also present for questions.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked who would be the best person to              
 describe what the bill does.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER gave an overview of the sectional analysis.             
 He explained that Section 2 prohibits an increase in insurance rate           
 filings for workers' compensation, if that insurance rate increase            
 is based only on wage rate.  In the construction industry, the risk           
 only consists of a higher wage rate.  In other words, an employer             
 who pays a higher wage to his employee for the same work, will not            
 be assessed a higher wage or a higher rate.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked how workers' compensation                    
 insurance rates are regulated.  Do we review and approve the rates?           
 MR. GROSSI answered that the Division of Insurance handles the                
 rates.  He understood the current system to be based on salary                
 paid, and various other load factors.  There may be reductions for            
 safety inspections and things like that.  It is not based strictly            
 on wages.  The premium is based on how much you have paid out in              
 salaries.  If two employees have the same type of business; one               
 employer pays the employees $12 per hour, and the other employer              
 pays the employees $10 per hour, your rate cannot be established              
 upon how much you pay your employees, but according to the risk of            
 the industry in which you are employing them.                                 
 CHAIRMAN PORTER restated that.  You should not be penalized as an             
 employer if you have seen your way clear to pay your employees more           
 than somebody else does.                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said Section 3 provides some protection to              
 design professionals who provide services for construction                    
 projects.  It makes them not civilly liable for injury to a person            
 if that person is injured on the job, with the exception of when              
 they are on the job and actually have a management function.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER explained that Section 4 changes the second             
 independent medical examination of an injured employee from                   
 mandatory to optional, at the request of the Board; in cases where            
 there is medical dispute over workers' compensation coverage.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked why we wanted to make the second             
 opinion optional.                                                             
 MR. GROSSI answered that right now, it is mandatory, so that if a             
 medical dispute exists between an employer's medical evaluator, and           
 the employee's attending physician, a third examination must be               
 performed.  This does not take into account that there are some               
 cases that the board can make a decision on.  For example, if there           
 is a 2 percent difference of opinion between the doctors on                   
 permanent and partial impairment, a mandatory examination would be            
 required.  Instead of this examination being mandatory, the board             
 could make a decision based on the evidence, not needing a third              
 medical examination.  This process would be faster, so injured                
 employees do not have to wait on the decision for a longer period             
 of time than necessary.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER continued to say that Section 5 requires that           
 benefits paid to recipients residing outside of Alaska be                     
 calculated on wages earned in Alaska.  Section 6 changes death                
 benefits to provide that benefits not be diminished at five and               
 eight year intervals.  Currently under workers' compensation, if a            
 worker is killed on the job, the surviving widow receives                     
 compensation for up to ten years.  After the first five years, she            
 would receive benefits at 100 percent; from the fifth through the             
 eighth year, it is diminished  to 66 and 2/3 percent; and from                
 years eight through ten, it is diminished to 50 percent.  This                
 provision would allow that benefit to remain whole throughout the             
 entire ten years.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said Section 7 provides a calculation for an            
 employee's gross weekly earnings.  This is in response to the                 
 Gilmore case, which pertained to the 1988 Reform Act, where the             
 Supreme Court threw out the provision in that computation; so                 
 Section 7 basically follows the guidelines of what the Supreme                
 Court has allowed us to do.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER described Section 8, which relates to fraud,            
 and imposes penalties for fraudulent or misleading acts relating to           
 workers' compensation benefits.  This allows a more expedient                 
 method for the board to deal with fraud, seeking redress and back             
 pay from the employee who made the fraudulent claim.  Section 9               
 provides safety inspectors to not be civilly liable for acts or               
 omissions in performing certain workplace safety services, unless             
 that act or omission constitutes intentional misconduct.  This                
 pertains to the so-called Van Biene case, which was a part of the           
 1988 Reform Act, which provided for workplace safety inspection               
 programs.  It gave employers a 5 percent discount for the                     
 inspection programs.  While we felt this was an incentive to                  
 promote work safety, the trial lawyers found it to be a potential             
 deep pocket, and exploited that opportunity; so we are attempting             
 to close that gap through Section 9.  Once that vulnerability or              
 liability was discovered, virtually nobody offered workplace safety           
 inspection programs anymore; hence, both the employer lost out, in            
 terms of higher premiums, and the employees lost out, in terms of             
 a less safe workplace environment.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER explained that Section 10 deals with the                
 definitions of seasonal and temporary work.  He had an amendment              
 for that to propose to the committee.  Section 11 is a transition             
 section for certain insurance rate filings.  Section 12 is the                
 applicability for Section 2.  Section 13 is the effective date.               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER offered Amendment one:                                        
      Page 3, line 19, after "occurred;:                                       
           Insert "or"                                                         
 CHAIRMAN PORTER felt that was just correcting a drafting error.               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move Amendment one as                   
 described.  Seeing no objection, the amendment was adopted.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move Amendment two which                
 would do the following:                                                       
      Page 8, lines 20 -21:                                                    
           Delete "does not continue through an entire calendar                
          Insert "is not intended to continue through an entire                
          calendar year, but recurs on an annual basis"                        
 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER explained that this is simply a clarification           
 of terminology in relation to the definition of seasonal work.  It            
 is a more accurate reflection of what constitutes seasonal work.              
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked where this would make a                      
 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mr. VanHemmert if the language on                 
 seasonal work relates to the Gilmore part of Section 7.                     
 MR. VANHEMMERT said that was correct.  He explained that page 6,              
 line 11, talks about the time of injury being exclusively seasonal            
 or temporary.  Then you take all the wages that the injured party             
 has earned during the year, and divide it by 50, which is an                  
 approximation of a weekly wage.  This balances out the occasions              
 where employees may have had a high paying job for a short period             
 of time, and it was anticipated to be seasonal or part time, then             
 they would not get the entire benefit.  It kind of evens out both             
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was further discussion on Amendment            
 two, or objection.  Seeing none, the amendment was adopted.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY offered and explained his amendment, which was           
 Amendment three:                                                              
      Page 1, line 7, after ";":                                               
           Insert "repealing the limitation on the hours a person              
           may be employed in a mine; making a related technical               
           amendment to avoid changing the penalties for failing to            
           make payments into an employee benefit fund;"                       
      Page 3, after line 5:                                                    
           Insert new bill sections to read:                                   
           "Sec. 3. AS 23.10.045(b) is amended to read:                        
                (b)  Each violation of this section is a separate              
           offense and a person found guilty of a violation is                 
           punishable under (c) - (d) of this section [IN ACCORDANCE           
           WITH THE SCHEDULE OF PUNISHMENT SET OUT IN AS 23.10.415].           
           Sec. 4. AS 23.045 is amended by adding new subsections to           
                (c)  A person who, whether as principal or agent,              
           violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon           
           a first conviction is punishable by a fine of not less              
           than $100 nor more than $500 or by imprisonment in a jail           
           for not less than 60 days, nor more than six months, or             
           by both.                                                            
                (d)  Upon a second conviction for a violation of               
           this section, the punishment is imprisonment in jail for            
           not less than 60 days, nor more than one year.  A "second           
           conviction" under this section means a conviction for a             
           violation of this section that was committed within two             
           years after a previous conviction for a violation of this           
           section.  Other convictions are first convictions."                 
      Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                        
      Page 8, after line 24:                                                   
           Insert a new bill section to read:                                  
           "Sec. 13.  AS 23.10.405, 23.10.410, and 23.10.415 are               
      Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                        
 He said this amendment would be beneficial to the mine workers, who           
 would like to work ten hour days.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER opposed the amendment.  The bill, as it                 
 currently exists, is a balancing act.  There are provisions within            
 here that provide additional protection for injured workers, and              
 there are provisions with the bill that provide additional benefits           
 to the employers.  He felt this amendment would tip the balance of            
 the bill in a direction that would no longer constitute                       
 equilibrium.  He felt this amendment would be a bill killer, but              
 would perhaps be appropriately offered as a separate piece of                 
 legislation.  Currently, this bill has the support of the Workers'            
 Compensation Commission of Alaska, organized labor, the                       
 Administration, and also the Department of Labor.                             
 TAPE 95-40, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 A roll call vote was taken on Amendment three.  Representative                
 Vezey voted yes.  Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Finkelstein and              
 Porter voted no.  The amendment failed, four to one.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment four.  He wanted to              
 put the phrase "except for seasonal or temporary work" into Section           
 7.  He did not want to pick a particular spot for it.                         
 CHAIRMAN PORTER opposed the amendment, saying that this bill does             
 not seek to deal individually with businesses or types of                     
 businesses like cannery workers.  It tries to balance across the              
 state for all businesses.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt his amendment would take care of              
 people at the very bottom of the ladder.                                      
 There was a debate on whether or not the bill excluded overtime.              
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that on page 6, line 11, it says that if at             
 the time of injury, the employment is exclusively seasonal or                 
 temporary, then, notwithstanding subsections 1 through 5, which is            
 the exclusion of overtime, weekly earnings are calculated at 1/50th           
 of the total wages, which would include overtime.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt this was a very confusing section,            
 and did not understand how you would pick which category you are              
 in.  You can be both seasonal or temporary, AND calculated by day,            
 hour or output.                                                               
 Number 250                                                                    
 ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide, House Judiciary Committee, noted              
 that because it says, "notwithstanding those sections," paragraph             
 6 would prevail.  Their benefits would be calculated under                    
 paragraph 6.                                                                  
 CHAIRMAN PORTER and Mr. Grossi agreed.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN decided to modify his proposed                     
 amendment.  Another way of doing the same thing, would be, in                 
 subsection 10, expanding it beyond permanent disability to also               
 include seasonal and temporary work, so that subsection 10 allows             
 the board to determine the calculations if it does not fairly                 
 reflect the employee's earnings.  This would put it up to the                 
 board's discretion.                                                           
 Number 375                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that for those people waiting to testify            
 or listen to the hearing on HB 234 or HB 130, the committee would             
 not have time to hear those two bills, and would postpone them                
 until next Monday.  In addition, the committee substitute for HB 10           
 would be heard on Wednesday.                                                  
 There was a short discussion on the best ways to calculate benefits           
 on seasonal and temporary wages.                                              
 Number 545                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN restated his proposed amendment.                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER requested a roll call vote.  Representative                   
 Finkelstein voted yes.  Representatives Vezey, Bunde, Toohey, and             
 Porter voted no.  The amendment failed four to one.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 237(JUD) out of               
 committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal                
 notes.  Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.                              
 The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 4:15 p.m.                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects