Legislature(1999 - 2000)

05/12/1999 01:52 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
         HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                    May 12, 1999                                                                                                
                     1:52 p.m.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                                                                              
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative Lisa Murkowski                                                                                                   
Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                       
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Fred Dyson                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 213                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the medical use of marijuana; and providing for                                                             
an effective date."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 213(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD)                                                                                                  
"An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners serving                                                                     
sentences of imprisonment for certain murders."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSSB 11(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3                                                                                                   
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                               
relating to the repeal of regulations by the legislature.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED SJR 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 110(RLS) am                                                                                              
"An Act relating to liability for the release of hazardous                                                                      
substances involving certain property acquired by a governmental                                                                
entity; relating to making a determination as to when a hazardous                                                               
substance release has occurred; relating to liability of a party                                                                
other than the party responsible for the initial release of a                                                                   
hazardous substance; and providing for an effective date."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS SB 110(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 219                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to the rule against perpetuities, nonvested                                                                    
property interests, and powers of appointment; and providing for an                                                             
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HB 219 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 4(FIN)                                                                                                   
"An Act relating to victims' rights; relating to establishing an                                                                
office of victims' rights; relating to compensation of victims of                                                               
violent crimes; relating to eligibility for a permanent fund                                                                    
dividend for persons convicted of and incarcerated for certain                                                                  
offenses; relating to notice of appropriations concerning victims'                                                              
rights; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure,                                                               
Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501, Alaska Rules of                                                                 
Evidence; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 4(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
(* First public hearing)                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 213                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA                                                                                           
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 4/27/99      1026     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 4/27/99      1027     (H)  HES, JUD                                                                                            
 5/03/99               (H)  HES AT  5:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                         
 5/03/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 5/04/99               (H)  HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                         
 5/04/99               (H)  MOVED CSHB 213(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                
 5/05/99      1177     (H)  HES RPT  CS(HES) 3NR 2AM                                                                            
 5/05/99      1177     (H)  NR: DYSON, WHITAKER, BRICE; AM:                                                                     
                            COGHILL,                                                                                            
 5/05/99      1177     (H)  KEMPLEN                                                                                             
 5/05/99      1177     (H)  FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)                                                                                  
 5/05/99      1177     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                                                             
 5/05/99      1177     (H)  REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                               
 5/11/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 5/11/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 5/12/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 11                                                                                                                     
SHORT TITLE: PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS                                                                                  
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Leman, Taylor                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/19/99        16     (S)  PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99                                                                           
 1/19/99        16     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/19/99        16     (S)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 2/17/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 2/17/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/17/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 2/22/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 2/22/99               (S)  MOVED CS (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                     
 2/22/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 2/23/99       337     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  2DP 1NR      NEW TITLE                                                                 
 2/23/99       337     (S)  DP: HALFORD, DONLEY; NR: TORGERSON                                                                  
 2/23/99       338     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (COR)                                                                   
 2/24/99       350     (S)  INDETERMINATE FN TO SB & CS (ADM)                                                                   
 3/11/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/11/99               (S)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 3/18/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/18/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 4/07/99               (S)  FIN AT  6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 4/07/99               (S)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 4/08/99               (S)  RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 4/08/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/08/99       821     (S)  FIN RPT  6DP 1DNP 2NR (JUD) CS                                                                      
 4/08/99       821     (S)  DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,                                                                   
 4/08/99       821     (S)  PETE KELLY, LEMAN, DONLEY;                                                                          
 4/08/99       821     (S)  NR: GREEN, WILKEN; DNP: ADAMS                                                                       
 4/08/99       821     (S)  PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN (ADM)                                                                     
 4/08/99       821     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN (COR)                                                                              
 4/09/99       846     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 4/9/99                                                                   
 4/09/99       849     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 4/09/99       849     (S)  JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                        
 4/09/99       849     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                           
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 4/09/99       849     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 11(JUD)                                                                   
 4/09/99       850     (S)  PASSED Y16 N3  E1                                                                                   
 4/09/99       850     (S)  ELLIS  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                    
 4/12/99       884     (S)  RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                        
 4/12/99       885     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 4/13/99       786     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 4/13/99       786     (H)  JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                                                                  
 4/21/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/21/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 4/22/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/22/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/22/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/07/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 5/07/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 5/12/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SJR 3                                                                                                                     
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Kelly Tim, Phillips;                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Harris                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/21/99        43     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/21/99        44     (S)  STA, FIN                                                                                            
 1/28/99               (S)  STA AT  3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 1/28/99               (S)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 1/28/99               (S)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 2/01/99       125     (S)  STA RPT  3DP 1DNP                                                                                   
 2/01/99       125     (S)  DP: WARD, PHILLIPS, MACKIE;                                                                         
                            DNP: ELTON                                                                                          
 2/01/99       125     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S. STA)                                                                           
 2/05/99       164     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                                                              
 2/11/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 2/11/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/11/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 2/11/99       227     (S)  FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                                                                   
 2/16/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 2/16/99               (S)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 2/16/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 2/16/99       256     (S)  FIN RPT  2DP 4NR 1DNP                                                                               
 2/16/99       256     (S)  DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL; NR: GREEN,                                                                  
 2/16/99       256     (S)  PETE KELLY, WILKEN, LEMAN; DNP: ADAMS                                                               
 2/16/99       256     (S)  PREVIOUS FN (GOV)                                                                                   
 3/15/99               (S)  RLS AT  1:40 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 3/15/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 3/16/99       564     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/16/99                                                                  
 3/16/99       570     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 3/16/99       571     (S)  ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD                                                                        
                            Y14 N4 E2                                                                                           
 3/16/99       571     (S)  THIRD READING 3/17 CALENDAR                                                                         
 3/17/99       585     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  SJR 3                                                                          
 3/17/99       585     (S)  COSPONSOR(S): TIM KELLY, PHILLIPS                                                                   
 3/17/99       586     (S)  PASSED Y14 N4 E2                                                                                    
 3/17/99       586     (S)  ELLIS  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                    
 3/17/99       587     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY  UNAN CONSENT                                                               
 3/17/99       587     (S)  HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 3/23                                                                     
                            CALENDAR                                                                                            
 3/23/99       650     (S)  BEFORE THE SENATE ON RECONSIDERATION                                                                
 3/23/99       651     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N5                                                                    
 3/23/99       652     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 3/24/99       544     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/24/99       544     (H)  STA, JUD, FINANCE                                                                                   
 3/24/99       562     (H)  CROSS SPONSOR(S): HARRIS                                                                            
 4/08/99               (H)  STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 4/08/99               (H)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 4/08/99               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 4/08/99       687     (H)  STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1NR                                                                                
 4/08/99       687     (H)  DP: JAMES, COGHILL, WHITAKER, OGAN;                                                                 
 4/08/99       687     (H)  DNP: SMALLEY, KERTTULA; NR: HUDSON                                                                  
 4/08/99       687     (H)  SENATE FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/11/99                                                                    
 4/26/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/26/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/26/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/28/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/28/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/28/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/12/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 110                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: HAZARDOUS SUBST. RELEASE: GOVT ENTITY                                                                              
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WILKEN                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/18/99       601     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/18/99       601     (S)  JUD                                                                                                 
 4/12/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 4/12/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/23/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 4/23/99               (S)  MOVED CS(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                      
 4/23/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/29/99               (S)  RLS AT 11:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 4/29/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/29/99      1169     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  1DP 2NR 1DNP NEW TITLE                                                                 
 4/29/99      1169     (S)  DP: TAYLOR; NR: TORGERSON, DONLEY;                                                                  
 4/29/99      1169     (S)  DNP: ELLIS                                                                                          
 4/29/99      1169     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DOT, DEC)                                                                        
 5/04/99               (S)  RLS AT  3:15 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 5/04/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 5/05/99      1249     (S)  RLS TO CALENDAR W/CS 1 OR 5/5                                                                       
                            SAME TITLE                                                                                          
 5/05/99      1249     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DEC, DOT)                                                                         
 5/05/99      1251     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 5/05/99      1252     (S)  RLS  CS ADOPTED Y11 N9                                                                              
 5/05/99      1252     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                           
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 5/05/99      1252     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 110(RLS)                                                                  
 5/05/99      1253     (S)  PASSED Y17 N3                                                                                       
 5/05/99      1253     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 5/05/99      1253     (S)  TAYLOR  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                   
 5/06/99      1277     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                                                                   
 5/06/99      1277     (S)  RETURN TO 2ND FOR RESCIND MOTION   UC                                                               
 5/06/99      1277     (S)  MTN TO RESCIND ACTION IN ADPTNG                                                                     
                            RLS CS                                                                                              
 5/06/99      1278     (S)  ACTION RESCINDED ADPTNG RLS CS Y11 N9                                                               
 5/06/99      1279     (S)  HELD IN 2ND W/QUESTION PENDNG TO                                                                    
                            5/7 CAL                                                                                             
 5/07/99      1299     (S)  RLS  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                        
 5/07/99      1299     (S)  AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                                                                      
 5/07/99      1300     (S)  RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM 1 UNAN CONSENT                                                                 
 5/07/99      1300     (S)  AM NO 1 OFFERED                                                                                     
 5/07/99      1300     (S)  AM TO AM 1  ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                    
 5/07/99      1300     (S)  AM NO 1    AS AMENDED ADOPTED Y20 N-                                                                
 5/07/99      1302     (S)  AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                                                                      
 5/07/99      1302     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y20 N-                                                                    
 5/07/99      1303     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 5/07/99      1308     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 5/08/99      1256     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 5/08/99      1256     (H)  CRA, JUD                                                                                            
 5/11/99               (H)  CRA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                         
 5/11/99               (H)  MOVED CSSB 110(RLS)AM OUT OF                                                                        
                            COMMITTEE                                                                                           
 5/11/99               (H)  MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                         
 5/11/99      1315     (H)  CRA RPT  5NR 1AM                                                                                    
 5/11/99      1316     (H)  NR: DYSON, JOULE, MORGAN, HARRIS,                                                                   
 5/11/99      1316     (H)  HALCRO; AM: MURKOWSKI                                                                               
 5/11/99      1316     (H)  INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (DEC)                                                                     
 5/11/99      1316     (H)  REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                               
 5/12/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 219                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES                                                                                          
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 5/04/99      1158     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 5/04/99      1158     (H)  JUDICIARY                                                                                           
 5/07/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 5/07/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 5/10/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 5/10/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 5/10/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/12/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 4                                                                                                                      
SHORT TITLE: OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS                                                                                          
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Donley, Green, Leman, Taylor,                                                                   
Wilken, Kelly Tim, Lincoln, Ellis, Parnell, Mackie, Miller, Kelly                                                               
Pete, Ward; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Porter                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/19/99        13     (S)  PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99                                                                           
 1/19/99        14     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/19/99        14     (S)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 1/22/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 1/22/99               (S)  MOVED CS (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                     
 1/22/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 1/25/99        77     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  3DP 1NR      SAME TITLE                                                                
 1/25/99        77     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, HALFORD, ELLIS;                                                                         
                            NR: TORGERSON                                                                                       
 1/25/99        77     (S)  FNS TO SB & CS (LAA, DPS, COR)                                                                      
 1/25/99        77     (S)  INDETERMINATE FN TO SB & CS (LAW)                                                                   
 1/25/99        77     (S)  ZERO FNS TO SB & CS (ADM-2, DPS)                                                                    
 3/30/99               (S)  FIN AT  8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/30/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/30/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/30/99       740     (S)  COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN                                                                                
 4/22/99               (S)  FIN AT  6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 4/22/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/27/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 4/27/99               (S)  MOVED CS (FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                     
 4/27/99      1130     (S)  FIN RPT  CS  7DP 1NR      NEW TITLE                                                                 
 4/27/99      1131     (S)  LETTER OF INTENT WITH FIN REPORT                                                                    
 4/27/99      1131     (S)  DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,                                                                   
                            GREEN                                                                                               
 4/27/99      1131     (S)  PETE KELLY, DONLEY, WILKEN; NR: ADAMS                                                               
 4/27/99      1131     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM-2, DPS)                                                                      
 4/27/99      1131     (S)  PREVIOUS FNS (COR, DPS)                                                                             
 4/27/99      1131     (S)  PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN (LAW)                                                                     
 4/28/99               (S)  RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 4/28/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/28/99      1148     (S)  FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DPS)                                                                             
 4/29/99      1170     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  4/29/99                                                                          
 4/29/99      1171     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 4/29/99      1172     (S)  FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                         
 4/29/99      1172     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                           
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 4/29/99      1172     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 4(FIN)                                                                    
 4/29/99      1172     (S)  (S) ADOPTED FIN  LETTER OF INTENT                                                                   
 4/29/99      1172     (S)  COSPONSOR(S): TIM KELLY, LINCOLN,                                                                   
                            ELLIS,                                                                                              
 4/29/99      1172     (S)  PARNELL, MACKIE, MILLER, PETE KELLY,                                                                
 4/29/99      1172     (S)  WARD                                                                                                
 4/29/99      1173     (S)  PASSED Y18 N- E2                                                                                    
 4/29/99      1173     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 4/29/99      1173     (S)  COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                       
 4/29/99      1175     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 4/30/99      1101     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 4/30/99      1101     (H)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 5/03/99      1145     (H)  CROSS SPONSOR(S): PORTER                                                                            
 5/10/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 5/10/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD SUBCMTE APPOINTED                                                                    
 5/10/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/12/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
AL ZANGRI, Chief                                                                                                                
Vital Statistics                                                                                                                
Division of Public Health                                                                                                       
Department of Health & Social Services                                                                                          
PO Box 110675                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0675                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-3392                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided clarification of Amendment 8.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MIKE PAULEY, Legislative Assistant                                                                                              
     to Senator Leman                                                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 155                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-2095                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided Senator Leman's view on various                                                                   
                     aspects of HB 213 and amendments before the                                                                
                     committee.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General                                                                                  
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
PO Box 110300                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Offered the Department of Law's opinion on                                                                 
                     various aspects of HB 213 and amendments                                                                   
                     before the committee.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
DAVID FINKELSTEIN                                                                                                               
Alaskans for Medical Marijuana                                                                                                  
P.O. Box 102320                                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska  99510                                                                                                        
Telephone:  (907) 277-2567                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 213 and amendments.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney                                                                                                      
Legislative Counsel                                                                                                             
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-2450                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Offered opinions on HB 213 and amendments.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner                                                                                                  
Department of Public Safety                                                                                                     
PO Box 111200                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-4322                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
JOHN KIMMEL, Legislative Administrative Assistant                                                                               
   to Senator Robin Taylor                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 30                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-4906                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented SJR 3 on behalf of Senator Taylor.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR                                                                                                            
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 30                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska 99811                                                                                                            
Telephone:  (907) 465-4906                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime Sponsor of SJR 3.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ELIZABETH HAGEVIG, Legislative Administrative Assistant                                                                         
   to Senator Gary Wilken                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 514                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3018                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented SB 110 on behalf of Senator Wilken.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
LARRY DIETRICK, Acting Director                                                                                                 
Division of Spill Prevention and Response                                                                                       
Department of Environmental Conservation                                                                                        
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105                                                                                                
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-5250                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on SB 110.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant                                                                                         
   to Senator Loren Leman                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 115                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-5149                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on SB 110.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
VIRGIL NORTON                                                                                                                   
P.O. Box 141796                                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska  99514                                                                                                        
Telephone:  (907) 776-5481                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 110.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant                                                                                         
   to Representative Pete Kott; and                                                                                             
Committee Aide, House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                              
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-4990                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  As committee aide, explained rule of                                                                       
                     perpetuities, relating to HB 219.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant                                                                                            
    to Representative Joe Green                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 214                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-6791                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Commented on SB 4.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BRETT HUBER, Legislative Assistant                                                                                              
     to Senator Rick Halford                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 121                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-4958                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed changes encompassed in HCS CSSB 4,                                                               
                     Version K.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-66, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                
meeting to order at 1:52 p.m.  Members present at the call to order                                                             
were Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, James, Murkowski, Croft and                                                                
Kerttula.  Representative Green joined the meeting at 5:22 p.m.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HB 213 - MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HOUSE BILL                                                               
NO. 213, "An Act relating to the medical use of marijuana; and                                                                  
providing for an effective date."  Chairman Kott noted that the                                                                 
next amendment before the committee would be Amendment 5.  In                                                                   
response to Representative Croft, he confirmed that at the last                                                                 
hearing Amendment 4 was adopted without objection.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0081                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt Amendment 5                                                              
which reads as follows:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 11, line 10, following "possess":                                                                                     
          Insert "in the aggregate"                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt Amendment 6                                                              
which reads as follows:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 6, following "investigation"                                                                                  
          Insert "of an individual suspected of a                                                                               
          violation of AS 11.71. AS 17.30. or this                                                                              
          chapter"                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease from 1:55 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the sponsor of Amendment 7 has                                                                     
withdrawn Amendment 7, labeled M2.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0312                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt Amendment 8, labeled G.13,                                                                  
which reads as follows:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 8, following "marriage"                                                                                       
          Insert ".  Notwithstanding this limitation,                                                                           
          upon the written request of a patient, the                                                                            
          department may list a person as the primary                                                                           
          caregiver for more than one patient if                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
               (1) that listing would avoid                                                                                     
               unnecessary hardship to the patient;                                                                             
               or                                                                                                               
               (2) the patient's care is being                                                                                  
               provided in a hospice program                                                                                    
               licensed under AS 18.18"                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purposes of discussion.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 8 would provide the                                                               
department discretion to allow a primary caregiver to be other than                                                             
a relative if under a hardship or a hospice program.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that there is a syntax problem in                                                             
subsection 2.  When hospice enters into a patient's care there can                                                              
be various scenarios such as joint care.  He did not mind the                                                                   
concept, but did not like the structure of the language which seems                                                             
singular.  Is the intention to allow the hospice caregiver the                                                                  
ability to obtain the marijuana?                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied no.  Amendment 8 speaks to the patient                                                             
illustrating hardship and that he/she is being cared for in a                                                                   
hospice program.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated concern with a primary caregiver                                                              
having more than one patient.  Is the idea to have a professional                                                               
caregiver with multiple patients?                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES interjected that is like the hospice program.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0570                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
AL ZANGRI, Chief, Vital Statistics, Division of Public Health,                                                                  
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), explained that the                                                               
intent with Amendment 8 is to allow a licensed hospice program to                                                               
provide a primary caregiver for more than one patient in such a                                                                 
setting.  Mr. Zangri noted that the licensing apparatus for hospice                                                             
programs should preclude establishing group marijuana distributors.                                                             
This is identical to the current regulations under the initiative.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how the marijuana would be                                                               
provided to a patient with a hospice program as the primary                                                                     
caregiver.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. ZANGRI said that he believed, in this case, that the hospice                                                                
program would be allowed to provide medical marijuana to the                                                                    
patients.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that would be a group.  Will a                                                              
blanket provision be given to do that?                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. ZANGRI explained that the individual patient has to have a                                                                  
card.  He expected this to work such that the hospice program would                                                             
be limited in its ability to possess or distribute medical                                                                      
marijuana to the aggregate amount of the number of ounces or number                                                             
of plants that the patients under the program's care had the right                                                              
to.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern that a Rastafarian group                                                              
could establish a hospice program.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. ZANGRI stressed that the Rastafarian group would have to meet                                                               
the necessary qualifications.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that if all qualifications are met,                                                              
the nationality of the group would not be relevant.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. ZANGRI clarified that a patient, under Amendment 8, would have                                                              
to illustrate a hardship "or" that the patient is receiving hospice                                                             
care, but not both.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to what DHSS would define as                                                               
"unnecessary hardship to the patient."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. ZANGRI acknowledged that the language is currently not defined,                                                             
but noted it will be defined in regulation by DHSS.  Mr. Zangri                                                                 
said, "It's currently in regulation, but the hardship that will be                                                              
looked at, in terms of each individual case, the commissioner won't                                                             
be making those decisions.  And we're talking about situations                                                                  
where you have one primary caregiver or -- a couple of patients,                                                                
..., that don't have any relatives in the area, that don't know of                                                              
any source, that no way of obtaining medical marijuana and an                                                                   
individual says, I'll grow it for you or whatever."  Mr. Zangri                                                                 
believed it would be extremely rare that such a hardship exemption                                                              
would be granted.  However, it is an option for those with no other                                                             
alternative.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if there is anything in the                                                                      
regulations that would prevent an individual acting as a primary                                                                
caregiver to 26 different patients because the aforementioned                                                                   
requirements can be demonstrated.  How can this be monitored?                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. ZANGRI stated that this would have to be a judgement call under                                                             
the current structure by the commissioner.  In further response to                                                              
Representative Murkowski, Mr. Zangri said the department has not                                                                
reviewed limiting the number of patients that one caregiver can                                                                 
service.  He indicated that the Department of Public Safety and the                                                             
Department of Law do not like this provision.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0999                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MIKE PAULEY, Legislative Assistant to Senator Leman, Alaska State                                                               
Legislature, informed the committee that he had faxed Amendment 8                                                               
to Mr. Dean Guaneli, Department of Law, who indicated that the                                                                  
Department of Law is opposed to Amendment 8.  The Department of                                                                 
Law's primary concern is the maintenance of the one-to-one                                                                      
relationship between the patient and the primary caregiver in order                                                             
to avoid those circumstances eluded to by Representative Murkowski.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if discussions of the Senate's                                                                   
companion bill spoke to limitations on the number of patients a                                                                 
caregiver could serve.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. PAULEY said this issue was discussed in earlier hearings.                                                                   
There is concern with Amendment 8 because, if adopted, it would                                                                 
also impact possession limits.  In a worst case scenario, a primary                                                             
caregiver serving numerous patients could have a greenhouse full of                                                             
plants using the argument that each patient is allowed an aggregate                                                             
of one ounce usable marijuana and six plants.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that to be a legitimate point and said                                                              
that he did not mind placing an upper limit in this section with                                                                
regard to how many patients one primary caregiver could serve.                                                                  
Representative Croft moved to amend Amendment 8 by inserting "but                                                               
not more than four patients" before "if" on line 4 of the printed                                                               
Amendment 8.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was objection to the amendment to                                                                  
Amendment 8,  There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment                                                              
8 was adopted.  Therefore, Amendment 8 as amended would read as                                                                 
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 8, following "marriage"                                                                                       
          Insert ".  Notwithstanding this limitation,                                                                           
          upon the written request of a patient, the                                                                            
          department may list a person as the primary                                                                           
          caregiver for more than one patient but no                                                                            
          more than four patients if                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
               (1) that listing would avoid                                                                                     
               unnecessary hardship to the patient;                                                                             
               or                                                                                                               
               (2) the patient's care is being                                                                                  
               provided in a hospice program                                                                                    
               licensed under AS 18.18"                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. PAULEY said that Senator Leman would be opposed to this                                                                     
amendment.  Through the process of this legislation, Senator Leman                                                              
has been reluctant to make changes without consensus from DHSS, the                                                             
Department of Public Safety, and the Department of Law.  He                                                                     
reiterated that the Department of Law opposed Amendment 8 in its                                                                
original form.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1354                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services                                                                  
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, commented                                                                 
that the notion of limiting the number of patients a primary                                                                    
caregiver can serve grew out of California's experience.  When one                                                              
person supplies marijuana to multiple people, fairly large growing                                                              
operations result.  From the experience of law enforcement                                                                      
officials with growing operations in  Alaska, Mr. Guaneli informed                                                              
the committee that in small basements growing operations can net                                                                
over $100,000.  The average grown plant (obtained by state                                                                      
troopers) that has been trimmed, leaves and seeds dried, produces                                                               
four ounces of marijuana which is worth a couple thousand dollars.                                                              
When that potential for profit making is injected into a                                                                        
humanitarian/medical operation, problems ensue.  Furthermore,                                                                   
police officers could find those with more than one ounce which                                                                 
could result in a dispute regarding how many patients are being                                                                 
cared for.  Mr. Guaneli did not see a need for one person to be the                                                             
supplier for a group.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI turned to the issue of hospice programs.  There must be                                                             
a distinction between a primary caregiver, which is defined in                                                                  
statute as someone who supplies a person with marijuana, and that                                                               
person's nurse who provides care.  Mr. Guaneli explained, "If a                                                                 
terminally ill patient in a hospice situation, is there with some                                                               
marijuana in the nightstand and every four hours smokes a little                                                                
bit.  The person who possesses that marijuana is the patient and                                                                
... that person can legally do it.  It's not the hospice worker's                                                               
or the janitor, it's not anybody else.  I mean, if the hospice                                                                  
worker takes it out the drawer and gives it to the patient, that's                                                              
not illegal.  ...they are not possessing it for purposes of the                                                                 
criminal law, they are simply assisting the patient in taking it                                                                
just as they would do with if it were narcotic pain pills; and they                                                             
don't have to be a licensed physician to assist the patient in                                                                  
taking those pills."  Therefore, Mr. Guaneli did not view the                                                                   
hospice situation as a problem nor did he believe these changes                                                                 
necessary to make the program work.  He viewed the changes as                                                                   
potentially creating some confusion with law enforcement officers                                                               
and additional inappropriate amounts of marijuana.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1643                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA understood that with the registration                                                                   
requirements anyone listed as a caregiver would have to be                                                                      
registered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI agreed with Representative Kerttula's understanding.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that it would be easier to have                                                               
less people carrying the marijuana or being the caregiver.  The                                                                 
possession would not be as spread out if one caregiver served four                                                              
patients.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI commented that could be taken to an extreme, having one                                                             
caregiver for 10 patients or one caregiver for an entire city.                                                                  
However, the more patients being served increases the potential for                                                             
profit motivation and the situation getting out of control.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that this is not our place to plan.                                                                 
She indicated that a caregiver serving more than one patient                                                                    
already seems to be allowed in the legislation.  It seemed that                                                                 
this would be dictated by the ill person needing marijuana.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI expressed the need to return to the goals which was to                                                              
limit the spread of marijuana with regard to who could have the                                                                 
marijuana and how much.  Beyond those specifics, Mr. Guaneli                                                                    
guessed that it was up to the patient to make those arrangements.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that although the departments have                                                             
concerns that we want to try to meet, these are people with                                                                     
debilitating conditions.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in                                                              
favor of Amendment 8 as amended and Representatives Rokeberg,                                                                   
James, Murkowski, and Kott voted against Amendment 8 as amended.                                                                
Representative Green was not present.  Therefore, Amendment 8 as                                                                
amended failed to be adopted with a vote of 2-4.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1872                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved the following conceptual amendment,                                                               
labeled Amendment 9:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 8, following "marriage"                                                                                       
          Insert "or a bonafide member of a hospice                                                                             
          program licensed under AS 18.18, prior to                                                                             
          November 1, 1998"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained, in response to Representative                                                                
Kerttula, that the November 1, 1999 date was chosen because the                                                                 
program had not been established prior to voter approval of the                                                                 
ballot initiative.  Upon review of AS 18.18 regarding licensure of                                                              
hospice programs, Representative Rokeberg felt that it would be                                                                 
relatively easy to establish a marijuana club under the current                                                                 
licensing law.  Representative Rokeberg commented that he is a                                                                  
strong supporter of hospice programs.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI objected for discussional purposes.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that in statute                                                                  
there is a standard hospice program and a volunteer hospice program                                                             
which has lower limits for membership.  Therefore, he believed that                                                             
current statutes could allow the establishment of a hospice program                                                             
of the aforementioned problematic type.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that this legislation is getting                                                                 
more complicated.  She asked if a caregiver referred to only                                                                    
providing the marijuana or would other services be provided for the                                                             
patient.  She was confused as to why a patient would need hospice                                                               
services unless the patient is receiving other hospice services                                                                 
besides the receipt of marijuana.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 2083                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DAVID FINKELSTEIN, Alaskans for Medical Marijuana, said that the                                                                
amendment is great, although it is only a small portion of what was                                                             
originally intended.  He noted that the original intention, "was                                                                
that anyone could end up with more than one patient per                                                                         
caregiver..."  Therefore, any improvement is welcomed.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to how many people a hospice                                                                   
person could serve marijuana.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. FINKELSTEIN stated that he was not very familiar with hospice                                                               
programs.  He believed that limiting availability to pre-existing                                                               
hospices would eliminate the possibility of abuse.  He reminded the                                                             
committee that these patients will be in a set circumstance.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that in Anchorage                                                                
there are very large inter-disciplinary teams that operate under                                                                
hospice.  However, there is generally only one or two registered                                                                
nurses on duty, who are licensed to administer pain medications.                                                                
Therefore, there would be a limited number of people to administer                                                              
a drug such as morphine.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned to Mr. Guaneli's comments that                                                                
the caregiver's role is to provide the patient with marijuana.                                                                  
Therefore, we are placing the hospice in a situation of being a                                                                 
grower and a supplier with which she is not comfortable.  She                                                                   
believed placing the hospice program in the situation of being the                                                              
supplier is problematic.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stressed that the hospice program would not                                                             
be growing the marijuana.  The hospice program would merely be the                                                              
conduit for the administration of the marijuana.  Representative                                                                
Rokeberg commented that the hospice program usually only comes into                                                             
play during the last few days of a person's life.  He envisioned                                                                
the primary caregiver giving the marijuana to the nurse.  The issue                                                             
of possession should be addressed in order to provide the hospice                                                               
program comfort with regard to handling marijuana.  The hospice                                                                 
program should be provided some statutory relief from handling the                                                              
marijuana.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that Representative Rokeberg's                                                                    
amendment does not seem to achieve his intent.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further objection to Amendment 9.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVES JAMES and MURKOWSKI objected.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Rokeberg, Croft, and                                                                     
Kerttula voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 9 and                                                                      
Representatives James, Murkowski, and Kott voted against the                                                                    
adoption of Amendment 9.  Representative Green was not present.                                                                 
Therefore,  Amendment 9 failed to be adopted with a vote of 3-3.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2369                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 10,                                                               
labeled G.11, which reads as follows:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 11, line 7, following "except that":                                                                                  
          Insert                                                                                                                
                         "(A)"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 11, line 9, following ","                                                                                             
          Insert "and                                                                                                           
                         "(B) if the patient does not receive                                                                   
               any compensation in any form in exchange for the                                                                 
               marijuana, a patient may give marijuana to another                                                               
               patient who is registered under AS 17.37.010 and who                                                             
               is in physical possession of a registry                                                                          
               identification card;"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 10 would allow one                                                                
patient to give marijuana to another patient who physically                                                                     
possesses a registry identification card.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI reminded the committee that a person is prohibited from                                                             
smoking marijuana in a place open to the general public, so a                                                                   
person could smoke marijuana in an Elk's Club, a private club.                                                                  
Therefore, Mr. Guaneli said that patients could form their own                                                                  
private club and under this provision, patients could give                                                                      
marijuana to other patients.  He likened this to the marijuana                                                                  
clubs that sprang up in California which is the danger.  If that                                                                
were to happen, law enforcement officials probably cannot do much                                                               
beyond obtaining a search warrant to enter the club.  The proposed                                                              
provision would allow the use of marijuana in a club setting which                                                              
would again create the danger of someone profiting from marijuana.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-66, SIDE B                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the language addressed providing                                                                
marijuana without compensation.  He inquired as to how that would                                                               
expand the places or context in which a person could use marijuana.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI reiterated that combining the two provisions results in                                                             
the ability to create a private club where marijuana can be used                                                                
and marijuana can be exchanged.  He did not believe that to be the                                                              
purpose of the initiative which he thought was to allow the private                                                             
use of marijuana for those needing it for medical purposes, but not                                                             
in a collective group setting.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that this is a fox-hole amendment                                                             
to which he is opposed.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked, "Would this mean that if one were suffering                                                                
from excruciating pain, and you had a neighbor who was also in the                                                              
same state, ... the neighbor came over.  They're both card                                                                      
carrying, registered members to use marijuana that the person --                                                                
either one of those individuals then couldn't give to the other?"                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0103                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI said that he believed the statutory scheme established                                                              
in this bill requires that a person be listed as a primary                                                                      
caregiver for someone else, that is the mechanism.  If patients are                                                             
allowed to freely give marijuana, then the number of people who can                                                             
supply marijuana is greatly expanded.  Mr. Guaneli thought the                                                                  
intent was to limit the scope or at least have it clear in the                                                                  
registry who is giving marijuana to whom.  Under Chairman Kott's                                                                
scenario, the neighbor could be designated as the primary or                                                                    
alternate caregiver for purposes of supplying marijuana.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked then if the neighbor was a patient and                                                               
a caregiver, could that patient possess two ounces and 12 plants of                                                             
which six could be flowering.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI said that he believed that would be the result with                                                                 
cross-designation as a patient and a caregiver.  He agreed with                                                                 
Chairman Kott that would be under the current statutory scheme.                                                                 
Perhaps, that is a problem that needs to be addressed.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in                                                              
favor of the adoption of Amendment 10 and Representatives Rokeberg,                                                             
James, Murkowski, and Kott voted against the adoption of Amendment                                                              
10.  Therefore, Amendment 10 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-4.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0228                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 11,                                                               
labeled G.12 which reads as follows:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 5:                                                                                                            
          Delete "Affirmative defense"                                                                                          
          Insert "Defense"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 9:                                                                                                            
          Delete "an affirmative"                                                                                               
          Insert "a"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, line 14:                                                                                                           
          Delete "an affirmative"                                                                                               
          Insert "a"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that a distinction in the law is                                                                 
between a defense and an affirmative defense; under one the                                                                     
individual must prove while the other the state has to prove                                                                    
against the individual.  Amendment 11 changes the affirmative                                                                   
defense to a defense.  Although this sounds minimal, it is a big                                                                
difference that is an important principle of criminal justice.                                                                  
With regard to those stating their belief as to the intent, only                                                                
those who passed the initiative really know the intent.                                                                         
Originally, it was clear that this was something the government had                                                             
to prove against an individual.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT withdrew his objection.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. PAULEY expressed Senator Leman's opposition to Amendment 11                                                                 
which is viewed as a drastic departure from the current structure                                                               
of the bill.  The intent of the affirmative defense provisions was                                                              
to follow the model of Alaska's concealed carry permit law.  Mr.                                                                
Pauley distributed copies of that law which provides an affirmative                                                             
defense.  In talking with owners of firearms and law enforcement,                                                               
it is apparent that this process has worked well.  It is difficult                                                              
for Senator Leman to understand how it would work differently under                                                             
the medical marijuana registry.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0431                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal                                                              
and Research Services, Alaska State Legislature, agreed with                                                                    
Representative Croft's explanation of Amendment 11.  Under an                                                                   
affirmative defense, once evidence is placed on that subject the                                                                
burden falls on the defendant to establish that by a preponderance                                                              
of the evidence.  However, with a defense, once some evidence is                                                                
placed to support the defense the burden falls on the prosecution                                                               
to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt.  He noted that                                                                      
information in the possession of the defendant sometimes involves                                                               
information that could be privileged.  Traditionally, legislatures                                                              
place the burden for defense, involving such evidence, upon the                                                                 
defendant.  If the evidence can be proven, it would constitute a                                                                
complete defense to the charge.  The information here seems to fit                                                              
some of those criteria in that it must be proven that the person                                                                
has been diagnosed by a doctor to have a debilitating medical                                                                   
condition.  That information could be considered privileged.  Mr.                                                               
Luckhaupt noted that the legislature has not used defenses often;                                                               
there have only be a few limited cases.  For the most part, when a                                                              
defense is provided it has been an affirmative defense.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT commented that the initiative is a bit confusing.  He                                                             
pointed out that the initiative in Section 17.37.030(a) says that                                                               
no person may be convicted for medical use of marijuana when the                                                                
listed criteria are proven by a preponderance of the evidence.                                                                  
That appears to be a sort of affirmative defense due to the                                                                     
language, "proved by a preponderance of the evidence", which would                                                              
mean that it is not necessarily placed on the prosecution who is                                                                
required to prove elements of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.                                                                 
Perhaps, that was a mistake and the intention was to place the                                                                  
burden on the prosecution.  However, there are conflicting                                                                      
provisions in the initiative as the next provision, subsection (b)                                                              
provides immunity.  Mr. Luckhaupt agreed with Mr. Pauley's earlier                                                              
statement that when the legislature has acted in similar areas, the                                                             
legislature has provided the defense as an affirmative defense.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0703                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA recognized that the initiative does seem to                                                             
include immunity in Section 17.37.030(b).  She asked if that was                                                                
the conflict to which Mr. Luckhaupt just referred.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied yes.  He believed that was an incentive to                                                                
get people to register so as to have complete immunity.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA understood that the legislation, as it is,                                                              
would eliminate immunity and maintain the affirmative defense; is                                                               
that correct?                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that the legislation currently provides for                                                             
mandatory registration and an affirmative defense is provided                                                                   
instead of immunity.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that proven by a preponderance                                                              
of the evidence is also used in Section 17.37.020 of the initiative                                                             
and therefore, would provide an affirmative defense in regard to                                                                
quantities of marijuana.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that the initiative had an                                                                        
affirmative defense for possession of marijuana in excess of the                                                                
amount established which she was not sure has been maintained in                                                                
the legislation.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that Amendment 12 would address that                                                             
concern.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0824                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. FINKELSTEIN emphasized that the initiative clearly says that if                                                             
a person registers with the state and meets the other conditions,                                                               
that person would not be subject to arrest.  According to testimony                                                             
to date, that would mean that the burden of proof falls on the                                                                  
prosecution.  The initiative includes a fall-back provision for                                                                 
persons who do not register with the state.  Such individuals are                                                               
not provided as much protection and the burden of proof lies with                                                               
that individual, an affirmative defense.  The comments that the                                                                 
affirmative defense is only about those who carry the card is not                                                               
correct because Section 1 of the legislation references the entire                                                              
legislation.  He said, "The burden of proof under number (3), at                                                                
the top of the page 2, applies to the entire bill ....  The burden                                                              
of proof will be on the patient to show they complied with the                                                                  
requirements of [AS] 17.37 as it applies to use in public which, of                                                             
course, that's obviously a case where it ought to be the                                                                        
prosecution's burden.  The patient can't show that they didn't use                                                              
it in public.  It's the kind of issue where if the prosecution can                                                              
show it, they have a witness showing it.  The patient can't show                                                                
that all their use was within the one ounce limit other than just                                                               
stating it.  The prosecution can; they can say they found over an                                                               
ounce.  These are just classic provisions that fit the way, I                                                                   
certainly understand our legally system:  you're innocent until                                                                 
you're proven guilty and the prosecution needs to make the case.                                                                
... I understand the arguments on mandatory registration, but if                                                                
you're going to go to that and you're going to preclude all these                                                               
other folks who might not do it, you certainly want them to sign                                                                
up.  And if you want them to sign up, it's better to give them at                                                               
least the standard that the prosecution has to make the case, not                                                               
the patient.  I just think that's a minimum to expect, if people                                                                
are going to sign up with the state.  Again, it isn't just the                                                                  
intent of the initiative, the initiative's actual language states                                                               
that you get that protection when you sign up with the state."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the location of the burden                                                               
of proof in the initiative.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. FINKELSTEIN said it is located in Section 17.37.030(b).                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recognized that as the immunity clause to                                                               
which Mr. Luckhaupt spoke.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT posed an example in which the police allege                                                                
that an individual was smoking marijuana in public; it must be                                                                  
proven that the individual was smoking marijuana in public.  If the                                                             
individual is charged with use of medical marijuana in public and                                                               
the defense nor the prosecution says anything, the individual has                                                               
not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she was not                                                               
smoking medical marijuana in public.  Representative Croft                                                                      
emphasized that it should be the burden of the state which is the                                                               
reasoning behind Amendment 11.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how that would work,                                                                     
practically.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1050                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI echoed Mr. Pauley's comments that the affirmative                                                                   
defense with concealed handguns has worked which is the case in                                                                 
other provisions as well.  Alaska's drug offenses specify that it                                                               
isn't necessary for the state to negate any exemption or exception,                                                             
but rather the defendant has the burden to prove beyond a                                                                       
preponderance of the evidence any exemption or exception claimed.                                                               
If an officer sees a bottle of pills in someone's purse, that                                                                   
person could, technically, be charged with an offense.                                                                          
Furthermore, that individual would have an affirmative defense,                                                                 
under current Alaska law, to prove that the individual has a                                                                    
prescription for the pills.  This particular provision has existed                                                              
in Alaska law since 1982.  Mr. Guaneli believed that the intent of                                                              
the legislation was to bring the medical marijuana provisions into                                                              
conformity with other provisions of Alaska law that dealt with                                                                  
individuals having prescriptions, recommendations, et cetera from                                                               
doctors for controlled substances.  Regardless of the intent and                                                                
language of the initiative, the legislation intends to be                                                                       
consistent with Alaska's drug laws.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI posed the example in which an officer stops an                                                                      
individual who claims to be an alternate caregiver.  The officer                                                                
requests the individual's card to which the individual does not                                                                 
respond.  At trial, the state would be required, per the amendment,                                                             
to prove that the individual did not have a card.  Mr. Guaneli was                                                              
not certain how that could be accomplished.  Under the legislation,                                                             
the individual would have to prove that he/she did possess the card                                                             
which would be in the individual's power to prove.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Guaneli if he had a debilitating                                                                 
condition as defined by this.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI replied no.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT recalled that Mr. Guaneli said that it would                                                               
have to be proven that the individual did not have the card on                                                                  
them.  However, page 1, line 11 of the legislation says, "the                                                                   
patient was registered" which would seem to indicate that it would                                                              
be as easy as reviewing the registration.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI specified that his example was in reference to an                                                                   
alternate primary caregiver, a person that must have the card.  He                                                              
said that affirmative defenses set out specific criteria for people                                                             
to follow in order for them to be covered.  These are guidelines                                                                
for conduct which is how it works for the concealed handgun law.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern that moving away from                                                                 
immunity completely would also move away from the original                                                                      
initiative.  She asked if immunity and affirmative defense are two                                                              
completely separate items under criminal law.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI answered that is correct, but noted that the                                                                        
legislature has the authority to amend initiatives as long as the                                                               
basic thrust and purpose of the initiative remains.  The                                                                        
legislature has broad discretion to change some of the policy                                                                   
choices of the voters.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA surmised, under the current legislation                                                                 
which requires registration, that immunity for a registered                                                                     
individual would not be allowed.  That individual would have to                                                                 
utilize the affirmative defense.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI agreed, but noted the practical use of the concealed                                                                
handgun law under which officers view an individual's concealed                                                                 
handgun permit and let the individual proceed.  He indicated that                                                               
in reality, an officer would ask if an individual is registered                                                                 
which would be checked on the DHSS computer system and if listed,                                                               
the individual would be left to go on their way.  Mr. Guaneli                                                                   
believed that the cases that would be prosecuted would be those in                                                              
which individuals are abusing the system.  In his view, it would be                                                             
fair to place the burden of proof on such an individual.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1404                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern with the practical                                                                    
application of this.  He posed a situation in which a registered                                                                
individual was outside smoking marijuana and an officer arrived and                                                             
inquired as to whether the individual was registered, but the                                                                   
individual had forgotten his/her card.  Would the officer check the                                                             
DHSS list?                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI indicated that would be the practical impact.  He                                                                   
believed that it's the intent of DHSS to have that list available                                                               
to police officers to receive an immediate answer, although he was                                                              
unaware as to how that would work technically.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG posed the same situation, but the                                                                       
individual being reviewed was the caregiver.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI responded that the registry would be checked for the                                                                
caregiver's name as well as the patient's name.  However, the card                                                              
would be necessary because there could be an alternate caregiver.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the caregiver would not be                                                                
smoking the marijuana.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that the caregiver would be in                                                                
possession of the marijuana.  He commented that the police officer                                                              
will be doing a field affirmative defense type of routine.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI said he believed that to be true, in a way.  It will                                                                
not be a problem, if the individual provides valid information that                                                             
checks out.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that with an affirmative defense,                                                                
she believed one would err on the other side which was not the                                                                  
intent of the initiative.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUANELI responded that he did not believe such a history of                                                                 
riding rough-shot over people's rights exists in Alaska.  This                                                                  
should be tried out; it has been designed to work and will work.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT emphasized that the legislation is a drastic                                                               
departure from the initiative and Amendment 11 is a drastic                                                                     
departure back toward the initiative.  The amendment is more                                                                    
analogous to immunity than the current legislation.  More justice                                                               
is accomplished by returning the legislation to reflect the                                                                     
people's will.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT reminded the committee that the motion before it was                                                              
the adoption of Amendment 11.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft, Kerttula, and Kott                                                                
voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 11 and Representatives                                                              
Rokeberg, James, and Murkowski voted against the adoption of                                                                    
Amendment 11.  Representative Green was not present.  Therefore,                                                                
Amendment 11 failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-3.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1808                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 12                                                                
which reads:                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 12, line 1, after "bus"                                                                                               
          Insert "(e) For quantities of marijuana in                                                                            
          excess of the amounts in (a)(4) of the                                                                                
          section, a patient or his or her primary                                                                              
          care-giver must prove by a preponderance of                                                                           
          the evidence that any greater amount was                                                                              
          medically justified to address the patient's                                                                          
          debilitating medical condition."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 12 would restore the                                                              
initiative's language which would allow the possession of more                                                                  
medical marijuana than the specified limit if there is a proven                                                                 
medical need for more.  The language is clear that it is the                                                                    
patient's burden and that it must be medically justified.  He                                                                   
pointed out that the committee has only had one person testify as                                                               
to the amount of marijuana that individual needed which was more                                                                
than the allowable amount.  Furthermore, the farther away an                                                                    
individual lives from an urban area the more reasonable for that                                                                
individual to possess more marijuana.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to what "medically justified"                                                              
would entail.  One of the benefits to medical marijuana, as has                                                                 
been discussed, is that it allows the patient to self-dose.  Would                                                              
that language entail a doctor's recommendation for dosage?  She                                                                 
indicated that a doctor would be unlikely to recommend dosage.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested on page 4, a paragraph (D) could be                                                              
inserted to require in the original application, if one requires in                                                             
excess of the allowable amount, to specify why more is necessary                                                                
and what amount would be necessary.  He acknowledged that the                                                                   
administrative concern is legitimate.  He said that he was willing                                                              
to craft language to speak to this concern.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that this is the problem with                                                                
marijuana which has different THC contents and patients with                                                                    
different needs.  She reiterated that she did not know if a doctor                                                              
would commit to such a recommendation.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stressed that an individual could receive a                                                                
month's supply of codeine and would not be second-guessed at all                                                                
due to a continuous condition.  Furthermore, having such an                                                                     
individual have to refill their prescription every 10 days is                                                                   
almost punitive.  The Department of Public Safety will not                                                                      
second-guess that individual's ability to receive a month or two                                                                
months worth of codeine.  However, that individual can only receive                                                             
a 10 day supply for marijuana, a drug that works better for that                                                                
individual.  Why are these people being made to jump through such                                                               
hoops?                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that more activity will be                                                                    
created if one is required to come in every 10 days.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-67, SIDE A                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted a case in Florida in which an                                                                     
individual went to court with her doctor and expert testimony.  The                                                             
judge ruled in that individual's favor.  So, there is precedence                                                                
for proving, under our law, an affirmative defense.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0064                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,                                                                    
stressed that it is not up to him to determine the amount of                                                                    
marijuana that someone would need.  However, it is up to him and                                                                
those that work for him to determine how much someone can possess                                                               
in a street situation.  He emphasized the need to set an amount                                                                 
that is not open-ended.  This is open-ended.  From the beginning                                                                
law enforcement has wanted the following:  "How much can you have,                                                              
are you registered, and who is your primary caregiver?"  Mr. Smith                                                              
commented that if an individual has more than an ounce and six                                                                  
plants, then the individual will be charged unless another limit is                                                             
established.  Officers need guidance in order to be able to apply                                                               
this law and not tie up the courts.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if it is problematic for an individual to be                                                                
able, by a preponderance of the evidence, to carry more.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH agreed that is problematic.  It cannot be determined                                                                  
whether the marijuana is medically justified on the weekend or in                                                               
the middle of the night.  He assumed that it will be decided in an                                                              
affirmative defense or hearing.  He reiterated that an officer will                                                             
not make a decision as to whether a person possessing in excess of                                                              
the limit is medically justified in doing so, that individual will                                                              
be charged.  It is too vague.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0339                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that it may be appropriate to arrest                                                             
someone that has in excess of the limit, but the question is now                                                                
does that individual go to jail and spend a year in jail.  Under                                                                
Amendment 12, that individual would have the ability to prove                                                                   
before a judge that he/she should not be held in jail for a year                                                                
and this is why it is medically necessary.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that it becomes more and more                                                                  
problematic as individuals attempt to obtain marijuana for this                                                                 
use.  He suggested that it would be easier for everyone, if these                                                               
individuals could stay at home and grow an appropriate amount for                                                               
their use.  He discussed scenarios in which an individual could end                                                             
up with more marijuana than specified thus far.  Representative                                                                 
Croft emphasized that if more certification is desired that could                                                               
be placed in the registry.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to where the limitation in amount                                                              
of one ounce and six plants, of which three could be flowering was                                                              
drawn.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. FINKELSTEIN answered that the amount came from the initiative.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thought the goal was to keep the                                                                  
initiative as it was.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT interjected that Amendment 12 would return the                                                             
legislation to the initiative with that exception.  He believed                                                                 
that a low level of possession was chosen, knowing that there was                                                               
an ability to prove the need for more marijuana.  The legislation                                                               
maintained the low level of possession, but eliminated the ability                                                              
to prove the need for more marijuana.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further discussion or objection to                                                             
Amendment 12.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI maintained her objection.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in                                                              
favor of the adoption of Amendment 12 and Representatives James,                                                                
Murkowski, and Kott voted against the adoption of Amendment 12.                                                                 
Representatives Green and Rokeberg were not present.  Therefore,                                                                
Amendment 12 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-3.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0774                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 213 as amended out of                                                                   
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying                                                                  
fiscal notes.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.  He stated that the last amendment                                                               
is the heart of the problem with this.  All the departments have                                                                
testified as to the convenience of this law with respect to their                                                               
duties, but this legislation is forgetting the medical needs of                                                                 
those involved.  Representative Croft expressed concern that                                                                    
although the establishment of a "bright line" would make it easier                                                              
for law enforcement, it will not meet the proven medical needs of                                                               
some people.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed and indicated the need to come up with a                                                                   
specific amount.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with some of Representative Croft's                                                                 
concerns, but did not believe Amendment 12 achieved what was                                                                    
desired.  She commented that she did not know how much marijuana                                                                
costs and furthermore, she was not convinced that everyone using it                                                             
will be growing it.  Perhaps, the cost would be prohibitive to                                                                  
having more than the specified amount.  Representative James                                                                    
stressed that the general underlying principle of the initiative                                                                
was good, but problems were created.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI reminded the committee that marijuana is                                                               
nothing more than a weed which can vary tremendously.  She                                                                      
indicated the need for the Federal Drug Administration to do                                                                    
research as that being done in the demonstration project in                                                                     
Mississippi so that it is clear how much is enough which would                                                                  
provide some control over this.  "I don't think that we can sit                                                                 
here and try to give the accommodation not only to the patients to                                                              
address their needs, but to also recognize that you are still                                                                   
dealing with a controlled substance and that law enforcement needs                                                              
some guidelines.  I think we've done as good a job as we can do                                                                 
with what we've got right here."  She believed the committee made                                                               
the appropriate decision with Amendment 12.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that he didn't disagree with Representative                                                             
Murkowski's comments.  He agreed with her comment regarding the                                                                 
variance in marijuana, specifically the strengths.  Chairman Kott                                                               
announced that he would be willing to work on an amendment with                                                                 
Representative Croft regarding the last issue.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives James, Murkowski, and Kott                                                               
voted in favor of reporting HB 213 as amended from committee and                                                                
Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted against reporting HB 213                                                               
as amended from committee.  Representatives Green and Rokeberg were                                                             
not present.  Therefore, HB 213 as amended failed to be reported                                                                
from committee.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the meeting to the call of the chair at                                                                 
3:48 p.m                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-68, SIDE A                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT called the meeting back to order at 5:27 p.m.                                                                     
Representatives Kott, Murkowski, Green and Rokeberg were present.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CSSB 11(JUD) - PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is CS FOR SENATE                                                             
BILL NO. 11(JUD), "An Act relating to good time credits for                                                                     
prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for certain murders."                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0059                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report CSSB 11(JUD) out of committee                                                              
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal                                                                
note.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 5:31 and called the                                                                 
committee back to order at 5:33.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 213 - MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee will continue the hearing on                                                              
HB 213, "An Act relating to the medical use of marijuana; and                                                                   
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
[The committee waited briefly for the arrival of members.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to rescind the committee's action on                                                              
HB 213.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 213(JUD) out of                                                                    
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying                                                                  
fiscal note.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SJR 3 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next item of business is SENATE JOINT                                                               
RESOLUTION NO. 3, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the                                                             
State of Alaska relating to the repeal of regulations by the                                                                    
legislature.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0359                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOHN KIMMEL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin                                                              
Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, noted that SJR 3 proposes to                                                                  
repeal regulations that are contrary to their enabling statutes.                                                                
This language is very focused and is not as broad as previous                                                                   
legislation.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0456                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, Alaska State Legislature, came before the                                                                 
committee noting it is difficult to repeal a regulation that has                                                                
been passed by an agency.  The issue that was previously presented                                                              
to the public was that any regulation could be repealed by                                                                      
resolution and it did not have any qualifying language.  This                                                                   
language, SJR 3, actually qualifies it and says you can only repeal                                                             
a regulation that fails to meet the intent of the legislation upon                                                              
which the regulation is based.  He said, "It actually is quite a                                                                
bit narrower, we did that on purpose because we were hoping to                                                                  
focus the real issue to the public better.  And I think in the                                                                  
past, one of the reasons the public has rejected it is that it                                                                  
looked like just a power grab by the legislature and one without a                                                              
basis and I think this language actually speaks to the reason why                                                               
the legislature might find it necessary to repeal a regulation and                                                              
that's why the language is a little different."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT requested the years that the previous ballot                                                                      
propositions were put before the voters.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
KIMMEL replied 1980, 1984 and 1986.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether these propositions were put forward                                                                 
based on a democratic majority.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR TAYLOR replied yes.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that he wants the public to know that this is                                                              
a bipartisan issue.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0704                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report SJR 3 out of committee with                                                                
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.  There                                                             
being no objection, it was so moved from the House Judiciary                                                                    
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 5:40 p.m. and called                                                                
the committee back to order at 5:41 p.m.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CSSB 110(RLS) AM - HAZARDOUS SUBST. RELEASE:  GOVT ENTITY                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next item of business is CS FOR SENATE                                                              
BILL NO. 110(RLS) am, "An Act relating to liability for the release                                                             
of hazardous substances involving certain property acquired by a                                                                
governmental entity; relating to making a determination as to when                                                              
a hazardous substance release has occurred; relating to liability                                                               
of a party other than the party responsible for the initial release                                                             
of a hazardous substance; and providing for an effective date."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0840                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ELIZABETH HAGEVIG, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator                                                              
Gary Wilken, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee                                                                
and read the following sponsor statement:                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Senate Bill 110 will assist municipalities in performing                                                                   
     their statutory duty to enforce liens for delinquent                                                                       
     property taxes.  Tax foreclosure is a mandatory process                                                                    
     leading to the taking of a tax deed that places the title                                                                  
     to a tax delinquent property in the municipality's name.                                                                   
     Some properties with delinquent taxes are contaminated.                                                                    
     Municipalities are concerned that they may be held liable                                                                  
     for preexisting contamination of foreclosed land with                                                                      
     significant environmental remediation costs.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,                                                                          
     Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) exempts by                                                                         
     definition state and local governments who acquire                                                                         
     property through "bankruptcy, foreclosure, tax                                                                             
     delinquency, abandonment, or similar means."  However,                                                                     
     the state law which addresses liability for damage caused                                                                  
     by the release of hazardous substances, AS 46.03.822,                                                                      
     does not precisely mirror the federal law.  Senate Bill                                                                    
     110 will amend AS 46.03.822 to ensure that federal and                                                                     
     state laws are similar in this respect.  The municipality                                                                  
     may therefore have title to the contaminated property                                                                      
     without involuntary exposure or cleanup.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Changes in the Senate also recognized the need to extend                                                                   
     this courtesy to innocent land owners who are not                                                                          
     directly responsible for contaminating the property that                                                                   
     they have acquired.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. HAGEVIG provided and distributed copies of proposed Amendment                                                               
1:                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 19, following "entity":                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          Insert "A hazardous substance release shall be determined                                                             
          to have occurred as provided in this section."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 21, following "leaching":                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          Insert "or migration"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 4-10:                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          Insert "costs under this section, a person who acquires                                                               
          a facility and who, upon discovering a release or                                                                     
          threatened release on, in, or at the facility that                                                                    
          occurred before acquisition of the facility, who had no                                                               
          reason to know that a hazardous substance was disposed of                                                             
          on, in, or at the facility, and who, upon discovering the                                                             
          release or threatened release, acted in accordance with                                                               
          (b)(2) of this section to begin operations to contain and                                                             
          clean up the hazardous substance, may not be held liable                                                              
          under this section unless the person has caused or                                                                    
          contributed to the release or threatened release of the                                                               
          hazardous substance, in which case, the person is subject                                                             
          to liability under this section in the same manner as any                                                             
          other person.  For purposes of this subsection, 'caused                                                               
          or contributed to the release or threatened release of                                                                
          the hazardous substance'                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
               (1)  does not include the failure to prevent the                                                                 
               passive leaching or migration at or from a facility                                                              
               of a hazardous substance in the air, land, or water                                                              
               that had first been released into the environment                                                                
               by a person other than the person that acquired the                                                              
               facility;                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
               (2)  after the ownership or control of the facility                                                              
               has been acquired by the person includes                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
                    (A)  the spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,                                                               
                    emptying, injecting, escaping, or dumping of a                                                              
                    hazardous substance from barrels, tanks,                                                                    
                    containers, or other closed receptacles; or                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                    (B)  the abandonment or discarding of barrels,                                                              
                    tanks, containers, or other closed receptacles                                                              
                    containing a hazardous substance."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1011                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LARRY DIETRICK, Acting Director, Division of Spill Prevention and                                                               
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, came before the                                                             
committee to testify.  He thanked the sponsors, and the "folks"                                                                 
from Fairbanks, for their assistance in clarifying the language.                                                                
He said both the Department of Environmental Conservation and the                                                               
Department of Law support the proposed language in the amendment                                                                
and the legislation.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1061                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether this is going to cause people to                                                             
find this as a way out of their obligations.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. DIETRICK replied the department doesn't believe so.  The number                                                             
of superfund sites have to be ranked high nation wide to be dubbed                                                              
a superfund site on the national list.  For example, Alaska Pulp in                                                             
Sitka, in which case the state intervened to take over, was closed                                                              
out of that site so the state wouldn't have to deal with the EPA                                                                
[Environmental Protection Act].  The department is comfortable with                                                             
that.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1118                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Let's back off from the superfund site,                                                             
something real serious though."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. DIETRICK asked Representative Green is his question whether or                                                              
not there is a potential loophole here.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied in the affirmative.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. DIETRICK added that they are comfortable with the language and                                                              
that a loophole has not been created.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1156                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to page 1, lines 9 and 10, of the                                                             
proposed amendment, and asked Mr. Dietrick whether he is confirming                                                             
that the release had to occur before an innocent third party came                                                               
into ownership of property.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she is troubled with the language in the                                                              
proposed amendment which refers to a person who acquires a facility                                                             
and finds that there was a release or threatened release, and that                                                              
person had no reason to know about that beforehand.  She read the                                                               
following text and inquired as to the location of (b)(2).                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     ...and who upon discovering the release or threatened release,                                                             
     acted in accordance with (b)(2) of this section to begin                                                                   
     operations to contain and clean up the hazardous substance,                                                                
     may not be held liable under this section unless the person                                                                
     has caused or contributed to the release or threatened release                                                             
     of the hazardous substance...                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1286                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. HAGEVIG replied, "We're not letting them off the hook to say,                                                               
'Well, just because you know it's there, and if the barrels are                                                                 
continuing to leak on the property it doesn't mean you don't have                                                               
to take action to try and stop it."                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1335                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said what further disturbs her is that it                                                                  
continues to say, "may not be held liable under this section unless                                                             
the person has caused or contributed to the release or threatened                                                               
release of the hazardous substance," and in the effort to clean up,                                                             
that might happen.  She added that seems to discourage somebody                                                                 
from cleaning it up because that might happen.  It's like a trap of                                                             
some sort.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1380                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant, to Senator Loren Leman,                                                                
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to testify. She                                                             
noted that when the bill left the Senate, they thought there was                                                                
agreement with all the parties who were concerned with it and then                                                              
Craig Tillery, Assistant Attorney General [Environmental Section,                                                               
Civil Division, Department of Law] reviewed the bill and alerted                                                                
DEC to some concerns.  She noted that they have been working with                                                               
all the parties including Virgil Norton [private citizen from                                                                   
Kenai] to craft something that satisfies all the parties.  She                                                                  
further explained the language in proposed Amendment 1, directly                                                                
correlates with the language that protects the municipalities so                                                                
basically, everybody is in the same boat.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. KREITZER directed the committees' attention to page 1, line 17,                                                             
and read the following text:                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     For purposes of this subsection, "caused or contributed to the                                                             
     release or threatened release of the hazardous substance" does                                                             
     not include the failure to prevent the passive leaching or                                                                 
     migration at or from a facility of a hazardous substance in                                                                
     the air, land, or water that had first been released into the                                                              
     environment by a person other than the person that acquired                                                                
     the facility...                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. KREITZER further stated their goal was to try to meet the                                                                   
concerns of DEC, Mr. Norton's concerns and the concerns of Senators                                                             
who already voted on this bill as well as the Department of Law.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether Mr. Norton's concerns were                                                                   
addressed.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. KREITZER replied yes.  Although he would have preferred the                                                                 
other language, he indicated that he can live with this language.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1499                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 1,                                                               
LS0360\SA.3, Cook, 5/12/99.  There being no objection, it was so                                                                
adopted.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the title needs to be                                                                     
amended.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI added that did come up in discussion and                                                               
deferred the question to Ms. Hagevig.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. HAGEVIG noted that she spoke with Tam Cook [Director, Legal and                                                             
Research Services Division, Legislative Affairs Agency] who                                                                     
indicated that although this has not been tested in court, in her                                                               
opinion these changes will not change the title of the bill.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1589                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the amendment is extending it                                                             
to other people that are not [indisc.--simultaneous speech].                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS unanimously replied private folks.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether this meets EPA standards.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER replied yes.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT called an at-ease at 5:55 p.m. and called the                                                                     
committee back to order at 5:56 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1621                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
VIRGIL NORTON testified via a cell phone from Kenai.  He said:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     I'm testifying to draw your attention to the very heart                                                                    
     of the innocent land owner defense as it currently is set                                                                  
     out in AS 46.03.822.  This is a strict liability statute                                                                   
     in that it affects every property owner in Alaska, and                                                                     
     strict liability is no-fault liability created by statute                                                                  
     because it defines obligations and responsibilities to                                                                     
     escape liability for someone taking the innocent land                                                                      
     owner defense.  And my interest in SB 110 is really                                                                        
     threefold.  Number 1, I wanted to prevent any                                                                              
     misinterpretation of the existing innocent land owner                                                                      
     defense or to color the statute because my in-laws are                                                                     
     going to court and I think they're going to be the test                                                                    
     case of the statute as it exists so I don't really oppose                                                                  
     what the local government entities are trying to do to                                                                     
     obtain total immunity but I didn't want the existing                                                                       
     statute (indisc.) colored it - if it worked as to effect                                                                   
     the statute as it's written today.  And number 2. I                                                                        
     wanted to, in the work that I helped do over on the                                                                        
     Senate side, my intention was to clearly define the word                                                                   
     'relief' and thereby strengthen the innocent land owner                                                                    
     defense.  And number 3. I wanted to always make sure that                                                                  
     we're establishing liability relating to cost recovery                                                                     
     issues squarely on the person responsible for the spill                                                                    
     or the release into the environment.  And in short, I                                                                      
     support the version that's already crafted that the                                                                        
     Senate - after several days finally passed 20-yeas and                                                                     
     0-nays.  But the current definition of 'relief' contains                                                                   
     key words 'into the environment'.  An example of that is,                                                                  
     once a person introduces a contaminate into the                                                                            
     environment this person is liable to all others who would                                                                  
     be affected and all others have a liability to stop or                                                                     
     attempt to stop the spread or migration of a contaminant                                                                   
     but they would direct their cost recovery efforts to the                                                                   
     liable person as the person that was responsible for the                                                                   
     spill...                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
[Mr. Norton's cellphone was inadvertently disconnected.]                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked who submitted Amendment 1 and whether                                                             
the committee can add to it.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied all parties involved.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1777                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. NORTON continued.  "Anyway, the issue here is liability both in                                                             
cost recovery and the obligations that are obligatory in the                                                                    
statute to act responsibly to avoid incurring a liability for                                                                   
someone taking the innocent land owner to defense and that's why I                                                              
support the version as it currently exists in the Senate version of                                                             
SB 110.  I will reluctantly support the House Judiciary's version                                                               
if that's the only way it's going to go..."  [Mr. Norton was                                                                    
disconnected again.]                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT told Mr. Norton that the House Judiciary Standing                                                                 
Committee has reviewed the amendment and has adopted it as part of                                                              
the package.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. NORTON continued.  "If you've done that then so be it.  I                                                                   
actually like what was already there because - but we'll have to                                                                
revisit this I suppose at another date, but I like the way it was                                                               
originally wrote [written] because we defined 'relief' and it's an                                                              
issue that concerns every property owner in Alaska.  I wanted the                                                               
liability directed only to the person that commits the act not just                                                             
somebody that has a deep pocket."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether adopting an amendment to                                                                  
include that definition would work.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied no.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. NORTON added, "I don't mean to offend the Alaska Department of                                                              
Law but they're not exactly world-renowned for their legal                                                                      
opinions."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the amendment and asked how can                                                             
there be a threatened release on something before an acquisition.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that there could be a barrel of                                                                   
something with a hole at the top and nothing has leaked out yet.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1996                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSB 110 (JUD) out of                                                                      
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero                                                             
fiscal note.  There being no objection, it was so moved from the                                                                
House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HB 219 - RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next item of business is HOUSE                                                                 
BILL NO. 219, "An Act relating to the rule against perpetuities,                                                                
nonvested property interests, and powers of appointment; and                                                                    
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested a refresher from Mr. Winchell on                                                              
the rule of perpetuities.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2088                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete                                                                  
Kott; and Committee Aide, House Judiciary Standing Committee,                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature, said one must have an interest that vests                                                             
within the lifetime.  In this case, the trust must vest within the                                                              
lifetime of the beneficiary.  He noted that there are caveats and                                                               
exceptions to the rules.  Mr. Winchell said this allows charitable                                                              
lead trusts to occur.  "They aren't an entity or a person," he                                                                  
explained, "so it vests without a person's life, and then we're                                                                 
allowing the abolition of the rule against perpetuities - which,                                                                
too, a growing minority of jurisdictions are doing - in order to                                                                
allow our jurisdiction to be a basically good forum, forum shopping                                                             
for estate planning purposes, where the abolition of the rule                                                                   
against perpetuities -- that's where the bill stands."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed his understanding that the rule                                                               
against perpetuities had already been abolished in Alaska.  [Other                                                              
members concurred.]                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2137                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, amid simultaneous discussion, made a                                                                   
motion to move HB 219 from committee with individual                                                                            
recommendations and any fiscal notes.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT, noting that there was no objection, announced that                                                               
HB 219 was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[Some loose discussion followed about members' uncertainty about                                                                
abolishing the rule of perpetuities, the lack of testimony, and                                                                 
that some members hadn't even heard the motion to move the bill.]                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. WINCHELL clarified that the rule against perpetuities came into                                                             
being during the Age of Reason, when thinkers didn't like the idea                                                              
of monarchies or aristocracies which transferred property, through                                                              
primogeniture, to the eldest son all the way through.  That became                                                              
a custom of setting up property trusts or just bequeathing property                                                             
in that direction.  Mr. Winchell added, "So, when we came to                                                                    
America, Thomas Jefferson and that crowd right there liked the idea                                                             
of dispersing the properties, and they just went ... on and on and                                                              
on and on.  So, the rule against perpetuities came in that way.                                                                 
It's an ancient, archaic term.  I don't know what else I can say                                                                
about it. ... We want to be able to bequeath properties in the                                                                  
fashion that we want to."  [HB 219 was moved from the House                                                                     
Judiciary Standing Committee.]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CSSB 4(FIN) - OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is CS FOR SENATE                                                             
BILL NO. 4(FIN), "An Act relating to victims' rights; relating to                                                               
establishing an office of victims' rights; relating to compensation                                                             
of victims of violent crimes; relating to eligibility for a                                                                     
permanent fund dividend for persons convicted of and incarcerated                                                               
for certain offenses; relating to notice of appropriations                                                                      
concerning victims' rights; and amending Rule 16, Alaska Rules of                                                               
Criminal Procedure, Rule 9, Alaska Delinquency Rules, and Rule 501,                                                             
Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective date."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,                                                               
Alaska State Legislature, noted that the committee substitute (CS)                                                              
was being drafted.  The changes of the subcommittee can be                                                                      
discussed without the CS.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that there are quite a few changes.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2287                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BRETT HUBER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Rick Halford, Alaska                                                              
State Legislature, informed the committee that it has before it the                                                             
Senate Judiciary Committee version which is what the subcommittee                                                               
version will look like.  Mr. Huber commented that the subcommittee                                                              
probably spent most of its time determining where to put the                                                                    
office.  The forthcoming CS will place the office in the                                                                        
legislative branch.  He reviewed specific areas resulting from the                                                              
placement of the office back in the legislative branch which                                                                    
include the nomination of the victims' advocate.  The victims'                                                                  
advocate would be nominated by a selection committee comprised of                                                               
three members of the House and three members of the Senate                                                                      
appointed by their presiding officers, including one minority                                                                   
member from each body.  A two-thirds vote of a joint session to                                                                 
confirm the victims' advocate would be required.  The term of                                                                   
office for the victims' advocate would be five years with a maximum                                                             
of three terms served.  Each additional term would require the                                                                  
two-thirds reappointment vote.  If the advocate had to leave the                                                                
office during the term, the acting victims' advocate would have to                                                              
fulfill the remainder of the term which would go through an                                                                     
appointment cycle.  Mr. Huber pointed out that there is a removal                                                               
provision which, with a two-thirds vote, could remove the victims'                                                              
advocate for neglect of duty, misconduct, or disability to perform                                                              
the duties.  Compensation is specified in the forthcoming CS.                                                                   
There is a staffing delegation section as well as a section                                                                     
describing the office and facilities which are made available in                                                                
the Legislative Affairs branch.  There is also the budget process                                                               
which would go through Legislative Council.  All those would be                                                                 
additions that can be seen in the Senate Judiciary Committee                                                                    
version.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI directed the committee to the removal                                                                  
clause and inquired as to what was meant by "disability."  She                                                                  
understood an individual's "inability" to perform a job.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER deferred to the drafter who was on his way to the                                                                     
hearing.  He noted that it was taken from the ombudsman's statutes.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT returned to appointment and the ability for an acting                                                             
advocate to complete the term of an advocate who has left office                                                                
for whatever reason.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER agreed.  He explained that the victims' advocate must                                                                 
name an acting advocate.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-68, SIDE B                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the acting advocate would finish the                                                                     
remainder of the victims' advocate's term without legislative                                                                   
confirmation.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER replied that is correct.  In response to Representative                                                               
James, he noted that the acting advocate would be an attorney.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0033                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that the subcommittee felt that at                                                               
least one attorney position is necessary, but this discussion is                                                                
regarding having an alternative victims' advocate.  She assumed                                                                 
that would be someone who would be working in the office which                                                                  
would mean two attorneys.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER explained that the staffing levels envisioned in the                                                                  
fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety, which is                                                                      
identical to the previous fiscal note submitted by the Legislative                                                              
Affairs Agency, would have a victims' advocate and two additional                                                               
attorneys, one paralegal, and three secretaries.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to the meaning of the subcommittee                                                             
saying that at least one attorney was necessary for the victims'                                                                
advocate to be effective.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER noted that one of Chairman Kott's questions to the                                                                    
subcommittee was regarding whether the victims' advocate needed to                                                              
be an attorney.  He recommended that the question be directed to                                                                
the subcommittee chair, Representative Murkowski.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN informed the committee that originally, there                                                              
was the possibility of reducing the office to one location.                                                                     
Currently, three locations are envisioned.  He indicated that the                                                               
committee [subcommittee] felt that there is a critical mass to make                                                             
this work.  In response to Representative James, Representative                                                                 
Green stated that this is being funded from those losing their                                                                  
permanent fund dividend.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that the funding is taken from                                                              
the Department of Corrections.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the group that would be                                                                     
involved has been expanded.  "That delta between what was and what                                                              
is, that'll pay for it."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated that the funding is taken from                                                               
the Department of Corrections.  He emphasized that he had some real                                                             
problems with this advocate being in the legislature as well as the                                                             
consumer price index (CPI) clause in the legislation.  The CPI used                                                             
is the Anchorage CPI which is only published annually.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER stated that provision does not actually apply to the                                                                  
Office of Victims' Rights, but applies to the Violent Crimes                                                                    
Compensation Board per that board's request.  That addition was                                                                 
made by Senator Donley in the Senate Finance Committee.  He                                                                     
explained that the amount allowed to be awarded is increased and                                                                
allowed the Violent Crimes Compensation Board, by regulation, to                                                                
index those increases annually, if they choose, with the Anchorage                                                              
CPI.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said his argument is the same; it is the                                                                
wrong index to use.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted another change in which the report is                                                                
not merely submitted annually, but also is available to the public.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0245                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to why the subcommittee decided                                                             
to place this office within the legislature.  He said that it seems                                                             
to inflate the legislature's budget with no benefit to the                                                                      
legislature.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that there were problems with                                                                  
placing this office in the Department of Public Safety and the                                                                  
Department of Law.  This issue was probably more time consuming                                                                 
than any other.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER informed the committee that he had talked with Ms.                                                                    
Carpeneti, Department of Law, and Mr. Smith, Department of Public                                                               
Safety.  Both Ms. Carpeneti and Mr. Smith indicated that it makes                                                               
better sense to place this office in an entity that can review the                                                              
functions of those agencies at an arm's length, as is the case with                                                             
the ombudsman.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented, laughingly, that this extra                                                                  
money should be placed in the Ombudsman's Office.  He pointed out                                                               
that the Public Defender and the Office of Public Advocacy are in                                                               
the Department of Administration in order to avoid conflict.  This                                                              
is an administrative function which has nothing to do with the                                                                  
legislature.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN interjected that the discussion drifted around                                                             
the fact that this should be a technically trained person, an                                                                   
attorney, who can be at an arm's length.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it could have been put out to                                                               
bid to some nonprofits.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER acknowledged that was discussed in the House Judiciary                                                                
Subcommittee as well as the Senate Finance Committee.  The Victims                                                              
for Justice group said that it would prefer a new office versus                                                                 
money because they believed there is more assistance with an                                                                    
office.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented, "Well, they know how to grow                                                                 
organizationally and bureaucracy."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER noted that Representative Kerttula had suggested that                                                                 
language requested by the Department of Law stating, "(c) The                                                                   
victims' advocate may not advise, counsel, or advocate on behalf of                                                             
a victim in a way that would, (1) prevent or discourage a victim                                                                
from cooperating with law enforcement authorities in a criminal                                                                 
investigation; (2) encourage a victim to withhold evidence from law                                                             
enforcement authorities in a criminal investigation;" should be                                                                 
changed.  She suggested that "with law enforcement authorities" be                                                              
deleted which provides broader discretion.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER said that he believed the forthcoming CS will include                                                                 
language which reflects when the office was located in the                                                                      
Department of Public Safety.  During that time, the Office of                                                                   
Victims' Rights was allowed to administer grants to nonprofit                                                                   
victims' agencies.  Administering of grants is an executive branch                                                              
function and therefore, that language in the forthcoming CS should                                                              
be eliminated.  This language is located under the "Staff and                                                                   
delegation" section of the Senate Judiciary CS.  There is also                                                                  
corresponding language under the lists of allowable uses of the                                                                 
permanent fund ineligibility dollars which should also be                                                                       
addressed.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 6:44 p.m. to 6:54 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0520                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt HCS SB 4, Version K dated                                                                   
5/12/99, as the working document before the committee.  There being                                                             
no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed the need to delete Section 4 in                                                               
its entirety or change the language to refer to the U.S. City                                                                   
Averages CPI.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES preferred deletion of Section 4 in its                                                                     
entirety.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER reiterated that the language refers to the Violent Crimes                                                             
Compensation Board.  Mr. Huber said that the sponsor would not                                                                  
object to removal of Section 4.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0618                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to delete Section 4 in its entirety                                                               
in the Version K CS.  There being no objection, Amendment 1 was                                                                 
adopted.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER directed the committee to page 6, lines 24-25 regarding                                                               
the grant language where subsection (b) would need to be deleted as                                                             
well as paragraph (5) page 13, lines 21-22.  Those are the sections                                                             
which allow the office of victims' rights to receive and administer                                                             
grants.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she so moved Amendment 2.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected and inquired as to why this is                                                                 
necessary.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUBER explained that, generally, the administering of grants is                                                             
an executive branch function.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection to Amendment 2.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0740                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HCS CSSB 4 as amended out of                                                               
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying                                                                  
fiscal notes.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.  He announced that he could not                                                               
support this legislation on the floor.  He removed his objection.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, HCS CSSB 4(JUD) was reported out of                                                                   
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved that the committee adjourn.  There being                                                             
no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects