Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/05/1995 01:12 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 5, 1995 1:12 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter, Chairman Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman Representative Con Bunde Representative Bettye Davis Representative Al Vezey Representative Cynthia Toohey Representative David Finkelstein MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 10: "An Act relating to payment for emergency services responding to certain motor vehicle accidents." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE * HB 286: "An Act providing an exemption from gambling and certain alcoholic beverage laws for gambling conducted by cruise ships for their ticketed passengers in the offshore water of the state; relating to promotions on board cruise ships; defining `cruise ship'; providing for exemption procedures for certain cruise ships before they can conduct gambling in the offshore water of the state; providing an exemption from the coin-operated device tax for cruise ships exempted from the gambling laws; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE CSSB 106(JUD): "An Act prohibiting minors from patronizing businesses that offer adult entertainment and prohibiting the employment of minors at businesses offering adult entertainment." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE CSSB 41(JUD): "An Act relating to reports by fishing vessels that are not licensed under the laws of the state." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 285: "An Act relating to the amount of the homestead exemption and to the method of changing amounts of exemptions." BILL POSTPONED HB 130: "An Act relating to agency review of public comment on the adoption, amendment, and repeal of regulations; relating to the examination of proposed regulations, amendments of regulations, and orders repealing regulations by the Administrative Regulation Review Committee and the Department of Law; relating to the submission to, and acceptance by, the lieutenant governor of proposed regulations, amendments of regulations, and orders repealing regulations; and requiring agencies to make certain determinations before adopting regulations, amendments of regulations, or orders repealing regulations." BILL POSTPONED (* First public hearing) WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 422 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4457 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 10 DAVE TYLER Alaska Fire Chiefs Association 1610 Hans Way Fairbanks, AK 99709 Telephone: (907) 479-5672 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 10 TOM DOW, Vice President Princess Cruise Lines 2815 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: Not Available POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 286 TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Assistant Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 30 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-3873 POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 41 TERESA SAGER, Senate Rules Committee Aide Senator Mike Miller Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 125 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4976 POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 106 ANNE CARPENETI, House Judiciary Committee Aide Representative Brian Porter Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 120 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4990 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 106 CHARLES MCKEE P.O. Box 143452 Anchorage, AK 99514 Telephone: Not Available POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 106 PREVIOUS ACTION 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) 3/20/95 03/31/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 03/31/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 286 SHORT TITLE: CRUISE SHIP GAMBLING & PROMOTIONS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS,Toohey JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/28/95 955 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/28/95 955 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 106 SHORT TITLE: NO MINORS WORK/ATTEND ADULT BUSINESSES SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER, Pearce, Salo, Lincoln, Torgerson, Green, Kelly, Leman, Frank, Halford, R.Phillips JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/01/95 438 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/01/95 438 (S) JUD 03/15/95 (S) JUD AT 02:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/17/95 678 (S) COSPONSOR: SALO 03/17/95 (S) JUD AT 03:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 03/20/95 697 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE 03/20/95 697 (S) ZERO FNS (LABOR #1, LAW #2) 03/22/95 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 03/22/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/23/95 766 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/23/95 03/23/95 769 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/23/95 769 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/23/95 769 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LINCOLN, TORGERSON, GREEN, 03/23/95 769 (S) KELLY, LEMAN, FRANK, HALFORD, PHILLIPS 03/23/95 769 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 106(JUD) 03/23/95 769 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2 03/23/95 772 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/24/95 879 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/24/95 879 (H) JUDICIARY 04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 41 SHORT TITLE: REPORTS BY OUT OF STATE FISHING VESSELS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Mackie JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/20/95 58 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/20/95 58 (S) RES, FIN 02/03/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/03/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 02/06/95 181 (S) RES RPT 4DP 1NR 02/06/95 181 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G #1) 02/06/95 181 (S) JUD REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE FINANCE 02/13/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 02/13/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 02/14/95 267 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE 02/14/95 267 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G #1) 02/28/95 425 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED 03/02/95 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 03/02/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/08/95 537 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/8/95 03/08/95 539 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/08/95 539 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/08/95 539 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 03/08/95 539 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 41(JUD) 03/08/95 540 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1 03/08/95 544 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/09/95 671 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/09/95 671 (H) FISHERIES, JUDICIARY 03/09/95 691 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MACKIE 03/20/95 823 (H) FSH REFERRAL WAIVED 04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 285 SHORT TITLE: AMOUNT OF HOMESTEAD AND OTHER EXEMPTIONS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/27/95 933 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/27/95 933 (H) JUDICIARY 04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 130 SHORT TITLE: REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW 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 ROOM 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 03/09/95 (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) 03/20/95 805 (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) 3/20/95 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 03/31/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 04/05/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-42, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:12 p.m. on Wednesday, April 5, 1995. All members were present. CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated that the following bills would be heard: CSHB 10, HB 286, CSSB 106, and CSSB 41. HB 10 - PAYMENT OF COSTS OF DWI ACCIDENTS REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, bill sponsor, introduced HB 10. It requires driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders convicted of causing a motor vehicle accident to pay for the cost of emergency services responders to that accident. The problems and associated costs of driving while intoxicated are clear. According to national statistics, 43 percent of all fatal motor vehicle accidents involve alcohol. According to the Department of Public Safety, 40 percent of all DWI arrests involve repeat offenders. Furthermore, alcohol related accidents nationwide result in economic costs of $46.1 billion per year, according to United States Transportation Department in 1990. HB 10 attempts to address these problems in two ways. First, as a deterrent to those who drive while intoxicated, by raising the financial penalty for doing so. By raising the financial burden to those breaking the law, HB 10 emphasizes the seriousness of the crime. Secondly, this bill shifts the financial responsibility of emergency services from the law abiding, tax paying citizens to the convicted DWI offender. There are three states, California, Indiana, and Kansas that have already enacted similar reimbursement laws. Number 090 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked what would happen if the person was indigent. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said what would happen is the same thing that happens now in other types of cases. If there is a court judgment against a person who is unable to pay or has relatively small resources, the court will agree to a payment schedule of $10 per month, or whatever the person can afford. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY thought we should be able to attach the permanent fund to this. They should be held responsible. REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked if they had looked into the process of issuing a court order to pay a third party in a criminal proceeding, as opposed to a civil proceeding. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said they did have lawyers look it over. Some municipalities actually have a similar law now allowing courts to issue a bench warrant, and so it would add a little bit of clout behind the billing. DAVE TYLER testified via teleconference, representing the Alaska Fire Chief's Association. DWIs do create lots of types of tragedies, people are left crippled, and property is destroyed. Other issues that do not generally come to light and are not so obvious, are the risks to responders and the costs involved. It is quite hard on our responders. For example, when a woman is killed in an accident it is real hard to give an answer when a husband comes up and asks how the wife is doing. This really causes a lot of stress. We also have the physical hazards, such as fire hazards when attending to vehicle accidents. Another possibility that exists is the exposure to bloodborne pathogens. Emergency responders go through hours and hours of training to learn how to handle these situations safely. We realize this all goes with the job, but the criminals should somehow be held accountable for their actions. Number 220 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said he was very supportive of what the sponsor was trying to do and has little patience for DWI offenders. He asked if Representative Davies could see this law broadening out to include reckless driving. Why should someone who is drunk and cause this expense be more liable than someone who is reckless and causes the expense? REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that was a good question. We had thought about generalizing the bill, but as you know, this bill only amends the drunk driving statute, and so it is limited to that arena. One might fairly consider those other things. We wanted to keep this particular bill focused narrowly on the DWI issue. He felt this reasoning was justified because of the very large number of accidents that are caused by drunk drivers (40 - 50 percent of fatal accidents). REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move CSHB 10(STA) out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. HB 286 - CRUISE SHIP GAMBLING AND PROMOTIONS Number 275 TOM DOW, Vice President, Princess Cruise Lines, Seattle, presented the following sponsor statement on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Bill Williams: "House Bill 286 gives the state authorization to offer an exemption from gambling statutes to cruise ships. This exemption would allow cruise ships to operate their casinos in Alaska waters. "Casino gambling aboard cruise ships is an amenity needed to keep Alaska on a par with other cruise destinations. While gambling is not the main attraction of cruises to other parts of the world, it is an accepted and expected part of the experience. "In these times of strict budget discipline it is important to find new sources of income. Ships that take advantage of this exemption will pay the state of Alaska fees ranging from $10,000 to $40,000 per year. Initial projections suggest this could add an additional $500,000 per year to state coffers. "This bill supports the tourism industry and raises state revenues. I ask you to support House Bill 286." MR. DOW stated that this practice of operating on-board casinos has been in place for over 20 years prior to a question being raised in 1993. The result of that question being raised was an Attorney General's Opinion stating that since there is nothing to exempt these operations in Alaska law, they were not exempt. We took that as a clue that something should be done. Last year, this committee as well as the House Finance Committee, and the same committees on the Senate side reviewed the bill. There have been a couple of changes this year. One, is that under current law, there is a prohibition against an employee of a casino from serving alcohol in a casino. There are bars and lounges in and adjacent to casinos. Employees are commingled in those rooms, so the current bill reflects an exemption from that statute. Secondly, under the charitable gaming laws, there is a requirement for a license for video games, pinball machines, etc., which do not pay out cash, but might offer prizes. As the business evolves, we are finding more and more teens and young adults on our cruises, so many cruise lines are offering video arcade games. The license fee is $25 per year. We have asked to be exempt from that fee. We estimate that the cruise ships will bring an estimated $575,000 in revenues to the state this year. This video game licensing fee would require some auditing and calculation of the pro rata share of the time these video machines were actually in the state. It would be some fraction of four months a year, perhaps half of that time. So you would be talking about 1/6 of $25 per machine. The accounting for that would eat up the fee. This has nothing to do with the concern over gift shop promotions that came up last year. What we had agreed to do in the previous bill would require full disclosure of these on-board gift shop promotions. Number 420 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked about the shore excursion trips. Are these trips solicited by you to sell? Do you pick and choose? MR. DOW said they do pick and choose. His company responds to solicitations, and they look at the product and sample it. We examine the reliability, dependability, cost and cleanliness of the operation. We probably have 150 of these on-shore adventures in a booklet for customers to pick from. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked about the on-shore excursion part of the bill. What is the difference between on-shore excursions and gift shops? The previous discussion was not just about gift shops, it was about on-shore services. In that scenario you just described, you did not mention whether or not that on-shore company is paying you to be in that catalog. MR. DOW answered that the vendors absolutely do pay a commission for the sale. They are not paying a consideration cost to be listed in the book. The gift shop promotion business differs a little bit, in that these are usually verbal presentations and there are a lot of possibilities for abuse by the employee giving the lectures, perhaps giving a little extra body language to one gift shop over another, because somebody is paying them on the side to do it. It is a system that has been abused in the past, and we have never participated in it. The cruise line's defense of on- board promotions is that in some international venues, they believe people are concerned about where they might be ripped off. If there is a problem, these people can come back and say, "Wait a minute. You recommended this gift shop, and I got some shoddy merchandise, and they would not give me a refund." The passengers have some leverage in the deal. We do not think that is a problem in Alaska. Number 550 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked for clarification on what the ship's booklet included. She did not like the idea of them sending people to particular shops. MR. DOW said sending someone to a gift shop is different than putting them on a helicopter. If we suggest a helicopter tour or raft trip, we assume some liability there, just by offering it. We have on board, the equivalent of an in-flight magazine, such as Alaska Airlines has. People can buy advertising in those magazines. We do not have promotions, but we do have printed advertising like you would find if you opened up your drawer at the hotel room or in the front of your seat on the airplane. Everybody has an opportunity to advertise. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what the commission was for advertising. MR. DOW answered that it is somewhere from 15 to 20 percent. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the distance from shore was for allowing gambling in international waters. MR. DOW said it is three miles. Number 690 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted the point is that the three mile restriction extends from the port to the cruise ship, rather than from the ship to the shore, because while coming up the passage, the ships are always within three miles of the shore. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered an amendment to page 4, line 8. He wanted to insert "on a commission basis" after the word "sold." CHAIRMAN PORTER objected and a roll call vote was taken. Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes. Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no. The amendment failed five to two. Number 800 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if someone could quickly explain what an unsworn falsification consists of, referring to page 3, line 7. ANNE CARPENETI, House Judiciary Committee Aide, said it is when you sign something certifying that it is true, but you do not take an oath. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was any assurance for age restrictions for cruise ship gambling. MR. DOW did not know. CHAIRMAN PORTER assumed that since the casinos are in general proximity to a lounge, which precludes anyone under 21, that the gambling would also preclude anyone under 21. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 286 out of committee with individual recommendations and no fiscal notes. Seeing no objection, it was so ordered. TAPE 95-42, SIDE B Number 000 CSSB 106(JUD) - NO MINORS WORK/ATTEND ADULT BUSINESSES TERESA SAGER, Committee Aide, Senate Rules Committee, introduced the bill. Sponsor statement: "Senate Bill 106 would prohibit businesses that provide adult entertainment, such as strip tease establishments, from allowing persons under 18 to patronize or be employed at such businesses. "Most adult entertainment establishments in Alaska serve alcohol which requires that employees be at least 19 and customers at least 21 years of age. However, recently some adult entertainment businesses have opened in Anchorage and Fairbanks that do not serve alcohol, therefore, the age limit rules that are usually imposed because of the service of alcohol do not apply. "CSSB 106(JUD) aims to close that loophole, ensuring that minors may not work in or patronize any such establishment, regardless of the nature of the work and regardless of whether the business does or does not serve alcohol. "The bill establishes the following penalties: Business allowing minors as patrons: Class A Misdemeanor(up to $5,000 fine, up to 1 year jail) Business employing minors, 1st offense: Class A Misdemeanor (up to $5,000 fine, up to 1 year jail) Business employing minors, 2nd & subsequent offenses: Class C Felony (up to $50,000 fine, up to 5 years jail)" REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY could not recall a single business venture that has survived commercially, that has not served alcohol. Do we even need to worry about these businesses continuing? CHAIRMAN PORTER said one of the reasons these businesses providing entertainment to minors do not work, is that the law enforcement agencies in the communities are forced into monitoring these places night after night after night. This is the only way to disallow the function of consuming alcohol on or near the premises. This bill would do away with the need to monitor these clubs, because it would pretty well do away with the employers' ability to run them. Number 080 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked about Section 3. In (f) 1 and 2 we have set up a standard for what the violation is: "dancing partly or completely unclothed, removing clothes," and the penalties seem to make sense. If you are caught doing it, you get the lowest level of misdemeanor, a fine up to $500, and up to 90 days in jail. Then the penalties go up from there. None of that makes any sense to me for (f) 3. Here is a person who is participating in either actual or simulated sexual penetration, or various categories of exhibition or bestiality. It is like apples and oranges in this section. We have a little stiffer laws than these already for someone who was to engage a minor in these kinds of activities. Am I missing something here? MS. SAGER asked if Representative Finkelstein was saying that there is a differentiation of penalties for the type of activity and for the type of entertainment offered? REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN answered no, but to clarify it, he completely understands the penalties and the provisions as they would apply to numbers 1 and 2 under Section 3. But when you get to number 3 of Section 3, we have already got a whole variety of laws that deal with an adult or individual who engages or hires a minor to be involved in sexual penetration or some of these other things. It does not seem that we would want to apply these lower penalties to something like this. It does not necessarily relate to what this bill is after. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Section 3 is a prohibition against allowing a minor to work in a premise that does this. The presumption would be that this would be an adult premise, precluding minors from being patrons, but there are exceptions for minors to work in places that have liquor licenses, for example. He said he knows that there are jurisdictions within the United States where they actually allow live sex acts. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that is right but we do not allow such acts. That is the point. CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that in case we ever do allow them, we are saying that we are sure we do not want minors working there. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN still felt that if it did occur, this is way too small of a penalty for this kind of activity. CHAIRMAN PORTER said this would not be for the activity itself, it would be just for allowing a minor to work there. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that Section 4 appears to be for the minor, and Section 5 for the employer. ANNE CARPENETI, House Judiciary Committee Aide, explained that all of the penalties in this bill are for the employer, or his/her agent. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the difference was between Sections 4 and 5. MS. CARPENETI answered that Section 4 sets forth the penalty for allowing a minor to be present at an establishment, whereas Section 5 sets the penalty for employing them at one. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that made sense. CHARLES MCKEE testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said with what this bill is attempting to do, the penalties are not stiff enough. They are only misdemeanors. He did not know if any of the committee members would appreciate their 18-year-old daughters working in establishments such as these mentioned. He recommended these establishments be shut down. They should not be in business. He talked to an operator last Sunday who was bragging to another individual that he had 14 back rooms for activities other than stage acts. He realized who he was talking to, and they do not have the appropriate liability coverage, nor does the state. Under Senate Bill 53, they tried to violate his individual property rights. Seeing how they do not have the right to purchase appropriate liability coverage, they should not be in business at all. Number 270 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to move the bill out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Seeing no objection, CSSB 106(JUD) moved. CSSB 41(JUD) - REPORTS BY OUT OF STATE FISHING VESSELS Number 275 TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, introduced CSSB 41(JUD). Sponsor statement: "This legislation would require foreign fishing vessels transiting or lying in state waters to report their catch by species, quantity and the area where harvested. "The bill was introduced at the request of the Ketchikan Trollers Committee in response to the rapid expansion of the fishery off Cape Muzon and Cape Chacon. It has gone from a relatively minor fishery with a dozen or so trollers, to a modern freezer fleet, that is at times in excess of 100 vessels. It will be possible to monitor this fishery because a transit to Canadian harbors is some 30 miles across waters exposed to the ocean -- so the ships often anchor in state waters until their holds are full. "The committee substitute changes the phrase `Foreign fishing vessels' to `unlicensed fishing vessels' and defines an unlicensed fishing vessel as a vessel that is not licensed under AS 16.05.490 - 530. This change eliminates possible confusion with federal statutes which place a different definition on `foreign fishing vessels.' "In a letter to Senator Taylor and Representative Williams, the trollers committee states, `Southeast Alaskan fishermen are suffering irreparable harm at the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty due to the inability or willingness of fishery managers in British Columbia to monitor this growing fishery.' The letter continues, `these reporting requirements would result in better harvest information during the season.' "While it would be ideal to have the Board of Fish implement this for the upcoming season, timing considerations preclude this from occurring until next year. The Department of Fish and Game has given this measure a zero fiscal note. I encourage your support of this measure." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said there was a problem earlier this spring with scallop fisheries. Will this have any impact on that problem? MR. OTNESS said it would not, to his knowledge. They were an unlicensed vessel, so they may be able to monitor that if they came into state waters. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE thought the problem was that they stayed outside, and did not come into state waters. CHAIRMAN PORTER recalled that they fished outside, came inside, but since they did not fish inside, they did not have to be licensed inside. REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if this has happened with any of the other countries other than Canada; perhaps the Taiwanese? MR. OTNESS said not to his knowledge, but it is possible. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if we are certain that in the meantime, the Board of Fish, or Fish and Game could not impose this reporting requirement as an emergency measure or temporary measure for the remainder of this season. MR. OTNESS thought there were existing laws that would preclude them from processing their fish in our state waters, but he had not looked into that. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the chance would be if this went into effect, that this would discourage them from pulling into Alaskan waters. MR. OTNESS said if you looked at the map, the 30 miles transit distance would discourage them from coming into our waters. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if this would apply to sport fishing vessels. MR. OTNESS did not think so, but he would have to look at the statute. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he really would like to know. MR. OTNESS explained that the map indicated the areas in which the fishing was actually occurring. The idea is for the Department of Fish and Game to be able to accurately obtain information on the type of species caught, and the amount. In order to obtain this information, we need to have the fishing vessels in our jurisdiction. We can do this by requiring them to report to us when they are anchoring or transiting our waters. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if they are actually going back to Canada to market their fish. MR. OTNESS said yes, they are. CHAIRMAN PORTER pointed out that this would not apply to sport fishing, since the particular statute references are to commercial fishing. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt it was unclear, because it refers to licensed vessels under the particular statute, and sport fishing boats are not licensed under the statute either. He felt the bill should make it very clear that they are NOT addressing sport fishing. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move CSSB 41(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Seeing no objection, it was so ordered. ADJOURNMENT The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 2:35 p.m.