Legislature(1999 - 2000)

04/10/2000 01:28 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                               
                         April 10, 2000                                                                                         
                            1:28 p.m.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                                                                              
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative Lisa Murkowski                                                                                                   
Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                       
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 163(RLS)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating  to trusts, to  a trustee's duties to  notify and                                                              
inform  beneficiaries,   and  to  the  revocation,   modification,                                                              
termination, reformation, construction, and trustees of trusts."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 163(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 324                                                                                                              
"An  Act  requiring written  consent  by  the  person who  is  the                                                              
subject of the  information before releasing  personal information                                                              
contained  in motor  vehicle  records, to  comply  with 18  U.S.C.                                                              
2721; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HB 324 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 341                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to agricultural  facilities  and operations  as                                                              
private  nuisances;  and  to  disclosures  in  transfers  of  real                                                              
property located  within one mile  of an agricultural  facility or                                                              
an agricultural operation."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 329                                                                                       
"An  Act  relating  to  services   and  information  available  to                                                              
pregnant women  and other persons; and requiring  informed consent                                                              
and a 24-hour  waiting period before an abortion  may be performed                                                              
unless there is a medical emergency."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 164                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to  electronic application  for and issuance  of                                                              
licenses, permits, and  tags issued by the Department  of Fish and                                                              
Game; to  violations regarding a  license, permit, or  tag applied                                                              
for  or issued  electronically;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                              
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 164(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 24(FIN) am                                                                                               
"An Act  relating to regulations;  amending Rule 65,  Alaska Rules                                                              
of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 24(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 211                                                                                                              
"An  Act  relating   to  liability  for  providing   managed  care                                                              
services, to  regulation of managed  care insurance plans,  and to                                                              
patient rights  and prohibited  practices under health  insurance;                                                              
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - RESCINDED ACTION OF 4/06/00; MOVED NEW CSHB 211(JUD) OUT                                                                 
       OF COMMITTEE                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 338                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to crimes  involving computers,  access devices,                                                              
other technology,  and identification  documents; relating  to the                                                              
crime of criminal  impersonation; relating to crimes  committed by                                                              
the unauthorized access to or use  of communications in electronic                                                              
storage; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 338(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27 am                                                                                               
Proposing amendments  to the Constitution  of the State  of Alaska                                                              
relating  to revisions  of the  state  constitution and  providing                                                              
that a court may not change language  of a proposed constitutional                                                              
amendment or revision.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS SJR 27(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 401                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to  computer networks  and  to electronic  mail                                                              
advertisements."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 401(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 163                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 4/22/99      1040     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 4/22/99      1040     (S)  JUD                                                                                                 
 4/28/99               (S)  JUD AT   1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                          
 4/28/99               (S)  -- MEETING CANCELLED --                                                                             
 5/03/99               (S)  JUD AT   1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                          
 5/03/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/05/99               (S)  JUD AT   1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                          
 5/05/99               (S)  -- MEETING CANCELLED --                                                                             
 5/07/99               (S)  JUD AT   1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                          
 5/07/99               (S)  -- MEETING CANCELLED --                                                                             
 5/10/99               (S)  JUD AT   1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                          
 5/10/99               (S)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 5/10/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 5/11/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:40 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 5/11/99               (S)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 5/12/99               (S)  JUD AT   2:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                          
 5/12/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 5/12/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/06/00               (S)  JUD AT   1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                          
 3/06/00               (S)  Moved CS(Jud) Out of Committee                                                                      
 3/06/00               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/09/00      2590     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  2DP 2NR                                                                                
                            NEW TITLE                                                                                           
 3/09/00      2591     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, TORGERSON; NR: ELLIS,                                                                   
 3/09/00      2591     (S)  DONLEY                                                                                              
 3/15/00               (S)  RLS AT 11:15 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 3/15/00               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 3/15/00      2613     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                                                                              
 3/16/00      2625     (S)  RLS TO CAL W/CS 2DP 2OR                                                                             
                            NEW TITLE 03/16                                                                                     
 3/16/00      2626     (S)  DP: TIM  KELLY, LEMAN; OR:                                                                          
                            ELLIS, PEARCE                                                                                       
 3/16/00      2626     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                                                                     
 3/16/00      2626     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 3/16/00      2627     (S)  RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                         
 3/16/00      2627     (S)  ADVANCED  TO THIRD READING                                                                          
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 3/16/00      2627     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 163(RLS)                                                                  
 3/16/00      2627     (S)  PASSED Y13 N3 E4                                                                                    
 3/16/00      2627     (S)  HALFORD NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                   
 3/17/00      2644     (S)  RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                        
 3/17/00      2644     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 3/20/00      2607     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 3/20/00      2607     (H)  JUD                                                                                                 
 4/03/00               (H)  JUD AT   1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                        
 4/03/00               (H)  Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                             
 4/10/00               (H)  JUD AT   1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 324                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL INFO IN MOTOR VEH. RECORDS                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/02/00      2060     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 2/02/00      2060     (H)  STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                       
 2/02/00      2060     (H)  FISCAL NOTE (ADM)                                                                                   
 2/02/00      2060     (H)  GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                                                                       
 3/02/00               (H)  STA AT   8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                        
 3/02/00               (H)  Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                             
 3/07/00               (H)  STA AT   8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                        
 3/07/00               (H)  Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                             
 3/09/00               (H)  STA AT   8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                        
 3/09/00               (H)  Moved Out of Committee                                                                              
 3/09/00               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 3/15/00      2488     (H)  STA RPT 2DP 2NR                                                                                     
 3/15/00      2489     (H)  DP: JAMES, HUDSON; NR: GREEN, OGAN                                                                  
 3/15/00      2489     (H)  FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 2/2/00                                                                            
 4/03/00               (H)  JUD AT   1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                        
 4/03/00               (H)  Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                             
 4/10/00               (H)  JUD AT   1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 341                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: FARM OPERATIONS:DISCLOSURE/NUISANCES                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/04/00      2098     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 2/04/00      2098     (H)  JUD, RES                                                                                            
 4/10/00               (H)  JUD AT   1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 329                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: INFO AND INFORMED CONSENT FOR ABORTION                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/02/00      2064     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 2/02/00      2064     (H)  HES, JUD, FIN                                                                                       
 2/04/00      2104     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING                                                                               
 2/09/00      2156     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): DYSON, OGAN                                                                           
 2/16/00      2207     (H)  SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED                                                                       
 2/16/00      2207     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 2/16/00      2207     (H)  HES, JUD, FIN                                                                                       
 3/21/00               (H)  HES AT   3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                        
 3/21/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 3/21/00               (H)  MINUTE(HES)                                                                                         
 3/28/00               (H)  HES AT   3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                        
 3/28/00               (H)  Moved CSSSHB 329(HES)                                                                               
                            Out of Committee                                                                                    
 3/28/00               (H)  MINUTE(HES)                                                                                         
 3/30/00      2780     (H)  HES RPT CS(HES) 4DP 1DNP 1NR                                                                        
 3/30/00      2781     (H)  DP: GREEN, DYSON, WHITAKER, COGHILL;                                                                
 3/30/00      2781     (H)  DNP: KEMPLEN; NR: MORGAN                                                                            
 3/30/00      2781     (H)  FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)                                                                                  
 3/30/00      2781     (H)  REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                               
 4/10/00               (H)  JUD AT   1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 164                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: FISH & GAME LICENSING BY ELECTRONICS                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/29/99       601     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/29/99       601     (H)  RES, JUD                                                                                            
 3/29/99       601     (H)  2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (F&G, LAW)                                                                      
 3/29/99       601     (H)  GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                                                                       
 2/16/00               (H)  RES AT   1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                        
 2/16/00               (H)  Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                             
 2/18/00               (H)  RES AT   1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                        
 2/18/00               (H)  <Bill Held Over From 2/16>                                                                          
 2/18/00               (H)  MINUTE(RES)                                                                                         
 2/21/00               (H)  RES AT   1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                        
 2/21/00               (H)  Moved CSHB 164(RES) Out of Committee                                                                
 2/21/00               (H)  MINUTE(RES)                                                                                         
 2/23/00      2267     (H)  RES RPT  CS(RES) 1DP 6NR                                                                            
 2/23/00      2267     (H)  DP: HUDSON; NR: JOULE, WHITAKER,                                                                    
 2/23/00      2267     (H)  MORGAN, BARNES, COWDERY, MASEK                                                                      
 2/23/00      2268     (H)  2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (F&G, LAW)                                                                      
 4/07/00               (H)  JUD AT   1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                        
 4/07/00               (H)  Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                             
 4/10/00               (H)  JUD AT   1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  24                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: REGULATIONS: ADOPTION & JUDICIAL REVIEW                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/08/99        20     (S)  PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99                                                                           
 1/19/99        20     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/19/99        20     (S)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 1/29/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 1/29/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 1/29/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 2/08/99               (S)  JUD AT   1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                     
 2/08/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/08/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 2/10/99               (S)  JUD AT   1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                     
 2/10/99               (S)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 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       338     (S)  JUD RPT  CS  2DP 2NR   NEW TITLE                                                                    
 2/23/99       338     (S)  DP: HALFORD, DONLEY;                                                                                
                            NR:TORGERSON, ELLIS                                                                                 
 2/23/99       338     (S)  FISCAL NOTES (DOT, DPS, DHSS,                                                                       
 2/23/99       338     (S)  DNR, REV, LAW, F&G, ADM, LABOR-6,                                                                   
                            DEC,                                                                                                
 2/23/99       338     (S)  DOE, DCED-3, GOV-2, COURT)                                                                          
 2/23/99       338     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS,                                                                             
 2/23/99       338     (S)  LABOR, DCRA)                                                                                        
 3/05/99       423     (S)  FISCAL  NOTES TO CS (GOV, DCED,                                                                     
 3/05/99       423     (S)  DOE-2,  DEC, F&G, DHSS, LABOR, LAW,                                                                 
 3/05/99       423     (S)  DNR, DPS, REV, DOT, COURT)                                                                          
 3/05/99       423     (S)  PREVIOUS FN APPLIES TO CS (GOV)                                                                     
 3/05/99       423     (S)  INDETERMINATE FN TO CS (ADM)                                                                        
 3/05/99       423     (S)  ZERO FN TO CS (F&G)                                                                                 
 3/09/99               (S)  FIN AT   9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                 
 3/09/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/09/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/18/99               (S)  FIN AT   9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                 
 3/18/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/22/99               (S)  FIN AT   9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                 
 3/22/99               (S)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 3/24/99               (S)  FIN AT   6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                 
 3/24/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/29/99               (S)  FIN AT   8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                 
 3/29/99               (S)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/29/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/31/99               (S)  FIN AT   6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                 
 3/31/99               (S)  MOVED  CS(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                     
 3/31/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 4/01/99       767     (S)  FIN RPT  CS  3DP 4NR      NEW TITLE                                                                 
 4/01/99       767     (S)  DP: TORGERSON,  PARNELL, DONLEY                                                                     
 4/01/99       767     (S)  NR: GREEN, PETE KELLY, LEMAN, WILKEN                                                                
 4/06/99               (S)  RLS AT   3:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                     
 4/06/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/06/99       793     (S)  FNS TO CS (S.FIN/DNR, DEC, F&G, LAW)                                                                
 4/06/99       793     (S)  INDETERMINATE  FN TO CS (COURT)                                                                     
 4/08/99       821     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO CS (GOV-2)                                                                     
 4/13/99               (S)  RLS AT  11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                     
 4/13/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 4/14/99       915     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR  1DNP 4/14/99                                                                     
 4/14/99       916     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 4/14/99       916     (S)  FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                        
 4/14/99       917     (S)  AM NO 1      ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                   
 4/14/99       917     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                           
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 4/14/99       917     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 24(FIN) AM                                                                
 4/14/99       918     (S)  PASSED Y14 N5  E1                                                                                   
 4/14/99       918     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 4/14/99       918     (S)  COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                       
 4/14/99       918     (S)  ELLIS  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                    
 4/15/99       936     (S)  RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                        
 4/15/99       936     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 4/16/99       839     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 4/16/99       839     (H)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 1/28/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 1/28/00               (H)  <Bill Postponed to 2/2/00>                                                                          
 2/02/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 2/02/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 2/02/00               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 2/07/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 2/07/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 2/07/00               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/10/00               (H)  JUD AT  7:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 211                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: HEALTH CARE INSURANCE:MANAGED CARE PLANS                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 4/22/99       914     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 4/22/99       914     (H)  L&C, JUD, FIN                                                                                       
 5/10/99               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 5/10/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 5/10/99               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
10/22/99               (H)  L&C AT 10:00 AM ANCHORAGE LIO                                                                       
10/22/99               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 2/04/00               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 2/04/00               (H)  -- Meeting Canceled --                                                                              
 2/16/00               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 2/16/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 2/16/00               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 2/16/00               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 3/03/00               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 3/03/00               (H)  Moved CSHB 211(L&C) Out of Committee                                                                
 3/03/00               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 3/08/00      2446     (H)  L&C RPT  CS(L&C) NT 1DP 2DNP 3NR                                                                    
 3/08/00      2446     (H)  DP: ROKEBERG; DNP: CISSNA, BRICE;                                                                   
 3/08/00      2446     (H)  NR: MURKOWSKI, HARRIS, HALCRO                                                                       
 3/08/00      2446     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                                                             
 3/24/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/24/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 3/24/00               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/31/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:15 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/31/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 3/31/00               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/06/00               (H)  JUD AT  2:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/06/00               (H)  Moved CSHB 211(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                
 4/06/00               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/10/00               (H)  JUD AT  7:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 338                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES INVOLVING TECHNOLOGY OR I.D.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/04/00      2095     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 2/04/00      2095     (H)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 2/04/00      2096     (H)  3 FISCAL NOTES (ADM, LAW, DPS)                                                                      
 2/04/00      2096     (H)  GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                                                                       
 2/23/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 2/23/00               (H)  Heard & Held                                                                                        
 2/23/00               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/10/00               (H)  JUD AT  7:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SJR 27                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: CONST.AM:CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION/AMENDMT                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 5/14/99      1461     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 5/14/99      1462     (S)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 1/19/00               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 1/19/00               (S)  -- Meeting Cancelled --                                                                             
 1/21/00               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 1/21/00               (S)  Moved Out of Committee                                                                              
 1/21/00               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 1/24/00      2050     (S)  JUD RPT       3DP                                                                                   
 1/24/00      2050     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, TORGERSON, DONLEY                                                                       
 1/24/00      2051     (S)  FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                                                                   
 2/07/00               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 2/07/00               (S)  -- Meeting Postponed 2/11/00 --                                                                     
 2/11/00               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 2/11/00               (S)  Moved Out of Committee                                                                              
 2/11/00               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 2/11/00      2273     (S)  FIN RPT 5DP 1DNP                                                                                    
 2/11/00      2273     (S)  DP: TORGERSON, PHILLIPS, PETE KELLY,                                                                
 2/11/00      2273     (S)  WILKEN, LEMAN; DNP: ADAMS                                                                           
 2/11/00      2273     (S)  PREVIOUS FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                                                          
 2/18/00               (S)  RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 2/18/00               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 2/22/00      2379     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 DO NOT                                                                      
                            CAL 2/22                                                                                            
 2/22/00      2380     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 2/22/00      2381     (S)  AM NO 1     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                    
 2/22/00      2381     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                           
                            2/23 CALENDAR                                                                                       
 2/23/00      2395     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  SJR 27 AM                                                                      
 2/23/00      2395     (S)  PASSED Y14 N5 E1                                                                                    
 2/23/00      2395     (S)  HALFORD NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                   
 2/24/00      2412     (S)  RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                                                                   
 2/24/00      2412     (S)  PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N5                                                                    
 2/24/00      2414     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 2/25/00      2297     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 2/25/00      2297     (H)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 3/17/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/17/00               (H)  Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                             
 4/10/00               (H)  JUD AT  7:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 401                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: COMPUTER NETWORKS AND SPAM ADS                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/16/00      2218     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                     
 2/16/00      2219     (H)  L&C, JUD                                                                                            
 3/24/00               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 3/24/00               (H)  Moved CSHB 401(L&C) Out of Committee                                                                
 3/24/00               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 3/28/00      2725     (H)  L&C RPT CS(L&C) 2DP 3NR                                                                             
 3/28/00      2725     (H)  DP: HARRIS, ROKEBERG; NR: BRICE,                                                                    
 3/28/00      2725     (H)  MURKOWSKI, HALCRO                                                                                   
 3/28/00      2725     (H)  3 INDETERMINATE FNS (ADM, COR, LAW)                                                                 
 3/28/00      2725     (H)  FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD                                                                        
 4/07/00               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/07/00               (H)  Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                             
 4/10/00               (H)  JUD AT  7:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
STEVE GREER, Attorney                                                                                                           
4041 B Street, Suite 205                                                                                                        
Anchorage, Alaska 99503                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented SB 163.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
DAVE SHAFTEL, Attorney                                                                                                          
550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 705                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed SB 163.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MARY MARSHBURN, Director                                                                                                        
Division of Motor Vehicles                                                                                                      
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
3300B Fairbanks Street                                                                                                          
Anchorage, Alaska 99503                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 324.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
JOHN MANLY, Staff                                                                                                               
     to Representative John Harris                                                                                              
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 110                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Introduced HB 341 on behalf of the sponsor.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
PETE FELLMAN, Staff                                                                                                             
     to Representative John Harris                                                                                              
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 110                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 341.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SCOTT MILLER, Farmer;                                                                                                           
Chair, Delta Farm Bureau                                                                                                        
HC 60 Box 4140                                                                                                                  
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737                                                                                                    
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on behalf of the Delta Farm Bureau                                                               
in support of HB 341.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT WELLS, Director                                                                                                          
Division of Agriculture                                                                                                         
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)                                                                                           
1800 Glenn Highway, Suite 12                                                                                                    
Palmer, Alaska 99645                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Noted DNR=s general support of right to farm                                                               
legislation and offered his assistance to work on any concerns                                                                  
with HB 341.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL                                                                                                     
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 416                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified as the sponsor of SSHB 329.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
DIXIE HOOD, Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist                                                                                
222 Seward Street, Suite 210                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to SSHB 329.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
DENISE BURKE, Staff Counsel                                                                                                     
Americans United for Life                                                                                                       
310 South Peoria Street, Suite 300                                                                                              
Chicago, Illinois 60607-3534                                                                                                    
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified that SSHB 329 is constitutional,                                                                 
but expressed concerns with the domiciliary provision.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
JOE MALICK (ph)                                                                                                                 
(Address not provided)                                                                                                          
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SSHB 329.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
DEBBIE JOSLIN                                                                                                                   
PO Box 377                                                                                                                      
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737                                                                                                    
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SSHB 329.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JUDY CAVANAUGH                                                                                                                  
510 3rd Street                                                                                                                  
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to SSHB 329.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
DEBRA SCHORR                                                                                                                    
Juneau Pro-Choice Coalition                                                                                                     
PO Box 21535                                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1535                                                                                                       
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to SSHB 329.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
DR. NELSON ISADA, Perinatologist                                                                                                
3300 Providence Drive                                                                                                           
Anchorage, Alaska  99508                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SSHB 329.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DR. JAN WHITEFIELD                                                                                                              
4115 Lake Otis Parkway                                                                                                          
Anchorage, Alaska  99508                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed concerns with SSHB 329.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
IDA BARNICK (ph), Alaskans for Life                                                                                             
(Address not provided.)                                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified that Alaskans for Life supports                                                                  
SSHB 329.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MARY DYE (ph)                                                                                                                   
(Address not provided)                                                                                                          
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SSHB 329.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SHERRIE GOLL                                                                                                                    
(Address not provided)                                                                                                          
Haines, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in strong opposition to SSHB 329.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ROBIN SMITH                                                                                                                     
14100 Jarvi                                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska 99515                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Requested that the committee stop SSHB 329                                                                 
now.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
LEILA WISE                                                                                                                      
PO Box 244034                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska 99524                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to SSHB 329.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
ANNE HARRISON                                                                                                                   
3270 Rosie Creek Road                                                                                                           
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified that SSHB 329 is ill-conceived and                                                               
urged the committee to stop the bill.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
EILEEN BECKER, Director                                                                                                         
Homer Crisis Pregnancy Center                                                                                                   
PO Box 2                                                                                                                        
Homer, Alaska 99603                                                                                                             
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of SSHB 329.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
AMY BOLLENBACH                                                                                                                  
PO Box 3429                                                                                                                     
Homer, Alaska 99603                                                                                                             
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to SSHB 32].                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
BARBARA CRAVER, Attorney                                                                                                        
(No address provided)                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to SSHB 329.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director                                                                                           
Alaska Civil Liberties Union                                                                                                    
PO Box 201844                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska 99520                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Urged the committee not to pass SSHB 329                                                                   
because it poor public policy and is unconstitutional.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
FRANCES HALLGREN                                                                                                                
PO Box 1625                                                                                                                     
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737                                                                                                    
POSITION STATEMENT:  Urged passage of SSHB 329.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
EMILY JOSLIN                                                                                                                    
PO Box 377                                                                                                                      
Delta Junction, Alaska 00737                                                                                                    
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SSHB 329.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KAREN VOSBURGH, Executive Director                                                                                              
Alaska Right to Life                                                                                                            
PO Box 1847                                                                                                                     
Palmer, Alaska 99645                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of SSHB 329.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                    
Human Services Section                                                                                                          
Civil Division (Juneau)                                                                                                         
Department of Law                                                                                                               
PO Box 110300                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska 99811-03033                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with SSHB 329.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN BROOKS, Director                                                                                                          
Division of Administrative Services                                                                                             
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)                                                                                        
P.O. Box 25526                                                                                                                  
Juneau, Alaska  99811-5526                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 164 on behalf of ADF&G and the                                                                
Administration.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY                                                                                                             
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 508                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified as the sponsor of SB 24 and SJR                                                                  
27.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HANS NEIDIG, Staff                                                                                                              
     to Senator Dave Donley                                                                                                     
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 508                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on SB 24.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
JANICE ADAIR, Director                                                                                                          
Division of Environmental Health                                                                                                
Department of Environmental Conservation                                                                                        
555 Cordova Street                                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed SB 24, Version L.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist for                                                                                                     
     Alaska State AFL-CIO                                                                                                       
710 West Ninth                                                                                                                  
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 211.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
JEFF BULLOCK (ph)                                                                                                               
Alaska State Medical Association                                                                                                
Alaska Physicians & Surgeons, Inc.                                                                                              
4107 Laurel Street                                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska 99508                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 211.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
JERRY REINWAND, Lobbyist for                                                                                                    
    Blue Cross                                                                                                                  
2 Marine Way, Suite 219                                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 211.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Legal Services Section - Juneau                                                                                                 
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
PO Box 110300                                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska 9811-0300                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:  Commented on Mr. Luckhaupt's suggestions in                                                                
regard to HB 338 and proposed other suggestions.  Suggested an                                                                  
amendment to HB 401.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director                                                                                                   
Alaska Public Defender Agency                                                                                                   
900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 200                                                                                                
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090                                                                                                    
POSITION STATEMENT:  Reviewed concerns with HB 338.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-53, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT  called the House Judiciary  Standing Committee                                                              
meeting to  order at  1:28 p.m.   Members present  at the  call to                                                              
order   were  Representatives   Kott,   Rokeberg,  Murkowski   and                                                              
Kerttula.  Representatives Croft  and James arrived as the meeting                                                              
was in progress.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SB 163-TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the  first order of business would be                                                              
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 163(RLS),  "An Act relating to trusts, to a                                                              
trustee's duties  to notify and  inform beneficiaries, and  to the                                                              
revocation, modification, termination,  reformation, construction,                                                              
and trustees of trusts."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0117                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
STEVE   GREER,  Attorney,   testified   via  teleconference   from                                                              
Anchorage.   He informed the committee  that he had been  asked by                                                              
Sue Mossgrove, Staff  to Senator Taylor, to present  SB 163 to the                                                              
committee.   He  explained that  SB 163  contains two  provisions.                                                              
The  first  provision, Section  1,  refers  to notification.    He                                                              
requested that  all questions regarding  Section 1 be  referred to                                                              
Dave  Shaftel,  Attorney.   Section  2  of  SB 163  addresses  the                                                              
modification provision.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. GREER  explained that Section  1 provides a  limited exemption                                                              
from notification with regard to  beneficiaries.  [This exemption]                                                              
applies  in a  situation  in which  an  individual  has created  a                                                              
trust,  which  has  a discretionary  beneficiary.    He  posed  an                                                              
example in  which one creates a  trust for the benefit  of his/her                                                              
child and  this gift and trust  is being made for  estate planning                                                              
purposes.  At the same time these  gifts are being made for estate                                                              
planning  purposes,  the  person  wants his/her  child  to  attend                                                              
college.   The person does  not want the  child to know  that this                                                              
large sum of money  has been set aside for that  child.  Section 1                                                              
adds a subsection  (b) to AS 13.36.080.  Subsection  (b) says that                                                              
a  settlor  can exempt  a  trustee  from the  normal  notification                                                              
duties with respect to the discretionary  beneficiary, but only if                                                              
the  creator/settlor of  the trust  is alive.   Furthermore,  that                                                              
exemption  must provided  in  a provision  of  the  trust and  the                                                              
instrument that creates the trust at the outset.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0297                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GREER  turned to  Section 2, which  is basically  a safety-net                                                              
provision  that is  found  in the  law of  various  states.   This                                                              
particular  provision is  drawn from  Section 415  of the  Uniform                                                              
Trust Act  and a similar California  statute as well as  a similar                                                              
South  Dakota  statute.    He informed  the  committee  that  this                                                              
provision  merely codifies  existing case  law; the  desire is  to                                                              
have  a supporting  statute.    He  explained that  the  provision                                                              
specifies that  a court, upon  the petition of  certain designated                                                              
individuals, can reform  or modify a trust in  four circumstances.                                                              
One  such circumstance  would  be  if  there is  an  unanticipated                                                              
circumstance.    Another  circumstance  would be  if  the  settlor                                                              
creating the  trust had a  mistake in law  or fact, which  must be                                                              
proven to the court by clear and convincing evidence.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GREER  said  the  third  circumstance   would  exist  when  a                                                              
modification is necessary  to achieve a tax exemption  because tax                                                              
law  changes frequently.    The  fourth circumstance  which  would                                                              
allow  modification is  if all  the beneficiaries  consent to  the                                                              
modification,  the court  will modify  the  trust as  long as  the                                                              
modification  does not  defeat a  material purpose  of the  trust.                                                              
However, if  the modification  does defeat  a material  purpose of                                                              
the trust,  the modification could still  be made by the  court if                                                              
the reasons  for the  modification to the  trust far  outweigh the                                                              
purpose for  which the trust was  created.  Mr. Greer  stated that                                                              
Section   2   would   allow  trusts   to   change   with   current                                                              
circumstances.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. GREER  informed the committee  that this is the  same approach                                                              
that the State of Florida took when  that state abolished its rule                                                              
against perpetuities.   He explained that the idea  is that if the                                                              
rule against perpetuities  allow trusts to continue  forever, then                                                              
as time passes  people must be  able to change in  accordance with                                                              
the changing  time.  He pointed out  that Section 2 is  similar to                                                              
Florida's statute that abolished the rule against perpetuities.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0525                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DAVE  SHAFTEL,   Attorney,  testified   via  teleconference   from                                                              
Anchorage.  Mr. Shaftel addressed  the notification provision.  He                                                              
said that often  it is not wise  to bring minor children  or other                                                              
beneficiaries  into  the  settlor's  estate  planning  while  that                                                              
person is alive and has the ability  to oversee that trust.  After                                                              
the settlor has passed away, then  the accountability is placed on                                                              
the beneficiaries who need notice  and accountings when requested.                                                              
This is  all that is accomplished  with Section  1 of SB 163.   He                                                              
pointed out  that [this  section] would also  place Alaska  on the                                                              
same  footing as  other states  in  which Alaska  is competing  in                                                              
regard to trust business.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SHAFTEL turned  to the  second portion  of SB  163, which  is                                                              
important in order to simplify judicial  proceedings.  If there is                                                              
a statute that merely codifies what  the case law says, then it is                                                              
easy for the  court to refer to  the statute, rely on  it and make                                                              
the  necessary  changes  to  accommodate  trusts.   A  statute  is                                                              
preferable to having  attorneys file lengthy briefs  in the court,                                                              
which has to review all the case  law in order to come to the same                                                              
conclusion.   He pointed  out that these  provisions exist  in the                                                              
Uniform  Trust  Act as  well  as in  many  other states  and  have                                                              
existed in  the law of those  states for a considerable  amount of                                                              
time.  He  referred to this "as  catching up."  He said  these are                                                              
good provisions  that will  strengthen our  statutory law  dealing                                                              
with the trust created by wills or by lifetime trusts.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0706                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI  referred to Section 1,  which allows for                                                              
an  exemption  to be  provided  orally  if  the trust  is  created                                                              
orally.  She asked  if that is problematic in terms  of proof that                                                              
one did or did not do what was said.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL  stated that  Representative Murkowski had  identified                                                              
the problem with  an oral trust.  He remarked that  he didn't know                                                              
of any practitioners  who would create such a trust.   However, he                                                              
imagined  there  could  be  circumstances  in  which  very  little                                                              
professional  planning was  done, although  there would be  enough                                                              
evidence  and  testimony  to establish  that  someone  had  placed                                                              
certain property  in trust.  With  such evidence, he  supposed the                                                              
settlor  of  the  trust  could  orally   provide  a  statement  to                                                              
establish such an exemption.  Mr.  Shaftel believes that this oral                                                              
trust language  was inserted by Legislative  Council.  He  did not                                                              
know of anyone who creates or relies on an oral trust.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. GREER  specified that  this [oral trust]  language was  not in                                                              
the original  version before the  Senate Judiciary  Committee, but                                                              
was  included  in  the  version that  passed  out  of  the  Senate                                                              
Judiciary Committee.  He noted that  he nor Mr. Shaftel were privy                                                              
to that testimony.   He echoed Mr. Shaftel's sentiments  in regard                                                              
to the creation of an oral trust.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI posed a  situation in which an oral trust                                                              
is created.   She commented  that she was  not aware that  an oral                                                              
trust could  be created.   Recognizing that  an oral trust  can be                                                              
created and  now that an  oral exemption  can be created  is cause                                                              
for concern.   Furthermore, under Section  2 of SB 163,  the court                                                              
can  interpret what  the  settlor intended  under  an oral  trust.                                                              
This sounds like a murky area.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL  stressed that there  will be a significant  burden on                                                              
anyone  who attempts to  rely on  an oral  trust.   If there  is a                                                              
dispute, the individual will have  to produce evidence in court in                                                              
order to carry the  burden of proof.  The individual  will have to                                                              
prove  the  terms  of  the  trust   and  any  exemption  provided,                                                              
otherwise that  trust will not  exist or satisfy  the modification                                                              
requirements.   Mr.  Shaftel surmised  that this  oral trust  must                                                              
have been devised from someone's  experience or situation and then                                                              
there was  the desire to  cover it in  the exemption  provision as                                                              
well.   He identified the safeguard  as the burden of proof, which                                                              
led to him not being personally concerned with this provision.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0147                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  referred  to  the trust  being  held  in                                                              
secrecy  from  the  person  who will  ultimately  take  it.    She                                                              
inquired as to what the current law  specifies in terms of telling                                                              
minors that there is a trust.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL  clarified that [this  bill] is not referring  to only                                                              
minors for which the age of majority  is 18.  He explained that an                                                              
individual in  their early  teens who hired  an attorney  would be                                                              
entitled  to  this  information  per the  current  statutes.    He                                                              
informed the  committee of the  following example, which  he noted                                                              
is common for estate  planners to face.  He explained  that he has                                                              
three children,  all of  which are  in their 20s  now and  thus he                                                              
would not have  a problem with the children knowing  about a trust                                                              
he had created for them.  When the  children were 18 years of age,                                                              
he would  not have wanted  them to know  about trusts that  he had                                                              
created  for  them   so  that  the  children   would  function  as                                                              
productive people  and not get caught  up in looking to  the trust                                                              
for their future.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL  said this  is a  very common  situation.   Therefore,                                                              
this statute  would allow a provision,  an affirmative act,  to be                                                              
included in the trust that says during  the settlor's lifetime and                                                              
capacity,  the  settlor   would  be  the  only   one  entitled  to                                                              
information.   Only when  the settlor is  no longer able  to track                                                              
the   trustee,   due  to   incapacitation   or   death,  are   the                                                              
beneficiaries entitled  to information  that the trust  is created                                                              
and to an  annual accounting.   Mr. Shaftel pointed out  that this                                                              
would take  care of  the situation  in which  a father has  passed                                                              
away and left a  trust for his second wife.  In  such a situation,                                                              
the  father's children  from the  first marriage,  who would  take                                                              
after the  second wife  passes, are  entitled to information  that                                                              
the  trust is  created as  well as  to accountings.   Mr.  Shaftel                                                              
emphasized that  this is a narrow  exemption that only  applies to                                                              
the lifetime and capacity of the  person who created the trust and                                                              
only  if the  person takes  an affirmative  action  and says  that                                                              
he/she wants this in the trust.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KERTTULA  surmised,  then,   that  there   is  no                                                              
difference between minors and adult children in the current law.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL replied no.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1274                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   ROKEBERG  referred  to   page  1,   lines  10-11,                                                              
regarding oral  statements.  He asked  if Mr. Greer had  said that                                                              
the  oral  [trust]  language  was   not  in  the  original  Senate                                                              
Judiciary  Committee  version,  but   was  perhaps  added  in  the                                                              
[Senate] Rules Committee.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GREER  answered,  "That's my  guess."  He  explained that  the                                                              
version  submitted  to  the Senate  Judiciary  Committee  did  not                                                              
include that  provision, as  he read  it.   Therefore, this  was a                                                              
surprise.  Mr.  Greer echoed Mr. Shaftel's comments  that he could                                                              
not  imagine that  an  oral trust  would ever  really  occur.   He                                                              
surmised that if  there was an oral trust, it would  be the result                                                              
of some  court proceedings.   Therefore, any possibility  of abuse                                                              
can't occur due to the court's oversight.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GREER,  in further response  to Representative  Rokeberg, said                                                              
oral trusts  are allowed  under common law.   Still, it  remains a                                                              
matter  of proof  that property  is held  in trust  verbally.   He                                                              
posed the following situation, "If  I give property to you ... and                                                              
tell you  that I  want to hold  this for  the benefit of  somebody                                                              
else and then  you take this money  and abscond with it,  then the                                                              
person who  was supposed  to benefit from  that property  could in                                                              
fact bring  a lawsuit."   Therefore, he  did not foresee  had this                                                              
situation could arise without it being in a court.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  said it seems maybe the  settlor had this                                                              
provision in  the trust and then  changed his/her mind,  which led                                                              
to an oral declaration  to the trustee to inform  the beneficiary.                                                              
Perhaps, that is the impetus for this language.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. SHAFTEL  remarked that it seems  that a situation  could arise                                                              
in litigation  in court whereby one  party says that  the property                                                              
was intended to be held in trust.   To which the response would be                                                              
questioning  whether  the  beneficiaries  were  notified  of  this                                                              
trust.     It  would  be  argued   that  failure  to   notify  the                                                              
beneficiaries and  provide them with  accountings is a  failure to                                                              
establish  this  oral trust.    If  persuasive evidence  could  be                                                              
offered  that there  is an exemption  that applies  - because  the                                                              
settlor  is able  to  prove, by  third  party  testimony, that  no                                                              
notice of this was  to be given to the beneficiaries  - that would                                                              
adequately  counter such  an  argument.   This  is something  that                                                              
could hypothetically  happen and  would only  happen in  very rare                                                              
circumstances.  Mr. Shaftel commented  that it does not seem to be                                                              
harmful at  all to  the statute  that is  being considered  as the                                                              
safeguard is always going to be the burden of proof.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  referred to the language on  page 1, line                                                              
11, "if the  trust is created  orally," which is the  portion that                                                              
is of concern to  him.  He commented that he didn't  know why that                                                              
language is included.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT  asked if  there  was  anyone  else who  wished  to                                                              
testify.  There being no one, public testimony was closed.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1601                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI  announced  that  she  would  feel  more                                                              
comfortable removing  the language that provides  for the creation                                                              
of  an  oral trust  and  an  oral exemption,  unless  someone  can                                                              
explain why the language was inserted and why it is necessary.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  pointed out that if oral  trusts are allowed                                                              
in  other areas,  the  question  becomes whether  this  additional                                                              
provision   should  only   be  allowed   in  writing  or   orally.                                                              
Representative Croft  said that if one [agrees]  with the original                                                              
premise that there can be oral trusts,  then it would seem to make                                                              
sense that  the exemption  could be made  orally when there  is an                                                              
oral trust.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  said he  believes that the  Department of                                                              
Law (DOL) stated earlier that oral  trusts can exist.  He believes                                                              
that  the recognition  of an  oral  trust in  [this bill]  muddies                                                              
things.  Representative  Rokeberg reiterated his  concern that the                                                              
experts don't know why this oral  trust language was included.  He                                                              
further  expressed concern  that  by including  this language,  it                                                              
would codify  oral trusts  as it seems  to give credence  to their                                                              
existence.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  remarked that  she was not sure  that she                                                              
even liked  the idea  of exempting trustees  from their  duties to                                                              
begin  with, especially  with adult  children.   By including  the                                                              
oral trust, it  further creates a chance to have  things go wrong.                                                              
Representative  Kerttula  said that  she  would  delete [the  oral                                                              
trust] language.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1760                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KERTTULA  moved  that   the  committee   adopt  a                                                              
conceptual amendment to remove [the oral trust language].                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG specified  that the language to be removed                                                              
is the following:   "by oral statement to the trustee  at the time                                                              
of the  creation of the  trust if the  trust is created  orally,".                                                              
This language is located on page 1, lines 10-11.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[There being no  objection, it was so ordered and  Amendment 1 was                                                              
adopted.]                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1808                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  moved to report CSSB 163(RLS)  as amended                                                              
out  of   committee  with   individual  recommendations   and  the                                                              
accompanying zero fiscal  note.  There being no  objection, it was                                                              
so  ordered and  HCS CSSB  163(JUD)  was reported  from the  House                                                              
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 324-PERSONAL INFO IN MOTOR VEH. RECORDS                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  announced that  the next  order of business  before                                                              
the  committee would  be HOUSE  BILL  NO. 324,  "An Act  requiring                                                              
written  consent  by  the  person   who  is  the  subject  of  the                                                              
information  before releasing  personal  information contained  in                                                              
motor  vehicle  records,  to  comply  with  18  U.S.C.  2721;  and                                                              
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1840                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MARY  MARSHBURN,  Director,  Division  of  Motor  Vehicles  (DMV),                                                              
Department  of Administration, testified  via teleconference  from                                                              
Anchorage.  She informed the committee  that the purpose of HB 324                                                              
is  to bring  state  laws into  compliance  with  the new  federal                                                              
legislation, which passed last fall  regarding the confidentiality                                                              
of vehicle  records.   The federal legislation  nor HB  324 affect                                                              
driver records, which is confidential  information under state law                                                              
and  continues  to be  so.    Current state  law  mirrors  federal                                                              
legislation and  allows the release of vehicle  record information                                                              
for about 11 permitted uses.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARSHBURN said most of those  uses were related to government,                                                              
law enforcement  or employment.   However,  one permitted  use did                                                              
allow vehicle record information  to be released for marketing and                                                              
solicitation  purposes;  that is  the  use  at which  the  federal                                                              
legislation was  directed, while other permitted  uses relating to                                                              
law enforcement  and government remain.   Ms. Marshburn  specified                                                              
that HB 324 and  the new federal legislation prohibit  the release                                                              
of   vehicle  record   information,   personal  information,   for                                                              
marketing and solicitation  purposes unless the  vehicle owner has                                                              
given consent to release the records.   She informed the committee                                                              
that federal legislation takes effect  for  "us" June 1, 2000, and                                                              
there is a $5,000 per day fine for noncompliance.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if, in  effect, the federal legislation                                                              
and now HB  324 change [the state]  to an "opt in" rather  than an                                                              
"opt out."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARSHBURN replied yes.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.   MARSHBURN   reiterated,  in   response   to   Representative                                                              
Murkowski, that  if the state is  found in noncompliance  with the                                                              
federal legislation,  the state  will be subject  to a  $5,000 per                                                              
day fine.   She  added that this  would also be  the case  for any                                                              
individual  who   releases  information  prohibited   by  the  new                                                              
[federal]  legislation.    In  response   to  Chairman  Kott,  Ms.                                                              
Marshburn  specified  that the  fine  is  levied by  the  attorney                                                              
general's office  and thus  she assumed that  the fine is  paid to                                                              
the U.S. Department of Justice.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1987                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out  that there is a $200,000 loss                                                              
of  revenues.   He asked  if DMV  has  been selling  the lists  to                                                              
certain people before.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MARSHBURN  answered  that  DMV  does  sell  restricted  motor                                                              
vehicle information,  which is allowed  under the old law  and the                                                              
division does receive revenue for  it.  She informed the committee                                                              
that there are two  basic sources of revenue.  One  source is from                                                              
the individual who requests a copy  of a vehicle record.  Perhaps,                                                              
the  individual  want  to  purchase   the  vehicle  and  wants  to                                                              
determine if  there is a  lien holder on  the vehicle.   She noted                                                              
that insurance  companies  also purchase  vehicle records.   Under                                                              
the  former  federal  law,  that  information  could  be  sold  to                                                              
business  firms [for the]  purpose of  reselling the  information.                                                              
Under the new federal legislation,  those firms will still be able                                                              
to purchase  the list for resale  for the permitted uses,  not for                                                              
marketing and solicitation.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  asked if  this would effect  the commerce                                                              
of the state and the ability of people  to find out about liens on                                                              
a vehicle.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARSHBURN  responded that individually  it may have  a minimal                                                              
effect.  However, practically it would not have an effect.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  inquired as  to how [the  division] would                                                              
construct the "opt-in" form.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARSHBURN  explained  that at  the time a  person purchases  a                                                              
vehicle  and  enters DMV  to  register  the  vehicle, one  of  the                                                              
questions asked  is whether the individual wants  that information                                                              
disclosed  for marketing  and solicitation  purposes.   Basically,                                                              
the same  would continue with a  slight variation in  the wording.                                                              
She  doubted  that  many  people   would  agree  to  [allow  their                                                              
information to be] disclosed.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented  that this may eliminate some of                                                              
the catalogs that he receives.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARSHBURN  stated that the  intent of the federal  legislation                                                              
was the marketing and the solicitation effort.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT asked  if anyone  else  wished to  testify.   There                                                              
being no one, public testimony was closed.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2183                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to report  HB 324 out of committee with                                                              
individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  fiscal  note.                                                              
There  being  no objection,  it  was so  ordered  and  HB 324  was                                                              
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB 341 - FARM OPERATIONS:DISCLOSURE/NUISANCES                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
HOUSE BILL  NO. 341, "An  Act relating to agricultural  facilities                                                              
and  operations  as  private  nuisances;  and  to  disclosures  in                                                              
transfers  of  real  property  located   within  one  mile  of  an                                                              
agricultural facility or an agricultural operation."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2210                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  MANLY, Staff  to Representative  John  Harris, Alaska  State                                                              
Legislature, stated that he would  present HB 341 on behalf of the                                                              
bill sponsor,  Representative Harris.   He informed  the committee                                                              
that  HB  341 amends  the  current  farm  law statute,  which  was                                                              
created in 1986.   This legislation expands and  redefines what is                                                              
meant  by agricultural  facilities  and operations.   It  protects                                                              
agricultural  facilities  and  operations  from  becoming  private                                                              
nuisances when the use of the land surrounding them change.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. MANLY  pointed out  that HB  341 ties  this protection  to the                                                              
farmer Ato  the fact  that he has  a valid farm conservation  plan                                                              
on  file with  the local  soil and  water conservation  district.@                                                              
Therefore, this will  provide the farmer with incentive  to file a                                                              
farm conservation  plan.   Mr. Manly  informed the committee  that                                                              
the other major  part of HB 341 is that it would  add a disclosure                                                              
requirement in the transfer of real  property sold within one mile                                                              
of a farm  that is protected  by this statute.   Therefore, people                                                              
purchasing [property]  in the neighborhood  of a farm would  be on                                                              
notice, at the time of purchase,  that [nearby] property is a farm                                                              
operation.  He offered to answer any questions.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA inquired  as to  why disclosure  is being                                                              
required.  She asked  if there is any case law  that would support                                                              
the notion  that disclosure  would make it  easier for  farmers to                                                              
protect themselves from a nuisance  case.  She also inquired as to                                                              
who would  ensure implementation  of disclosure;  would it  be the                                                              
owner of the property?                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. MANLY  said he was not  very familiar with that,  but supposed                                                              
the burden would fall on the seller of the property.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed  concern in a situation in which                                                              
no disclosure  occurred and a  subsequent property owner  brings a                                                              
nuisance suit  saying that he/she  didn=t receive  any disclosure.                                                              
She  surmised  that   in  such  a  situation,   the  farmer  would                                                              
ultimately be hurt.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2360                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
PETE FELLMAN,  Staff to Representative  John Harris,  Alaska State                                                              
Legislature,  testified  via teleconference  from  Fairbanks.   He                                                              
pointed  out that throughout  the  Lower 48 there  have been  many                                                              
laws that  protect farmers  against nuisance  lawsuits.   However,                                                              
many of  those have not been  able to stand  up to the tests  in a                                                              
court of  law.   Mr. Fellman  informed the  committee that  in New                                                              
York State there is a farm law which  requires disclosure by those                                                              
that are selling  the land.  That disclosure protects  all parties                                                              
involved.   [He indicated  that HB  341 is  modeled after  the New                                                              
York State law.]  The soil and water  conservation plan is sort of                                                              
a new idea.   He explained that  New York created a new  branch of                                                              
government  in  order  to  do exactly  what  the  soil  and  water                                                              
conservation districts already do.   Currently, the soil and water                                                              
conservation  districts    come   out,  look  at  farms  and  make                                                              
suggestions -  when requested  by farmers -  in regard to  how the                                                              
farmer can  be a better farmer  and preserve and protect  the soil                                                              
and  water.   Therefore,  this legislation  hopes  to protect  the                                                              
farmer  and those  purchasing land  by affording  the farmer  with                                                              
protection   from  nuisance   lawsuits   if  a   soil  and   water                                                              
conservation plan  is filed.   If the  farmer chooses not  to file                                                              
such a plan, then the farmer wouldn=t be protected by HB 341.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired  as to how many farmers currently                                                              
don=t have soil and water conservation plans.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FELLMAN noted  that he  had spoken  with the  Delta soil  and                                                              
water  district  as  well  as  Glen  Franklin  (ph),  Division  of                                                              
Agriculture.   [From those  conversations]  he learned that  there                                                              
are a substantial  number of smaller  farmers - with farms  in the                                                              
range  of  100-150   acres  -  who  don=t  have   soil  and  water                                                              
conservation plans.  [From the  committee secretary=s notes:   Mr.                                                              
Fellman said  that most farmers  in Alaska with  larger operations                                                              
do have soil and water conservation plans.]                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-53, SIDE B                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. FELLMAN explained  that without a soil and  water conservation                                                              
plan, a  farmer wouldn=t qualify  for things such as  CRP payments                                                              
or cost-sharing payments.  Therefore,  it behooves most farmers to                                                              
have a soil and water conservation plan.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0035                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  asked if  Mr. Fellman  is  aware of  any                                                              
cases in  Alaska in which  there has  been mention of  this notice                                                              
provision.   She  said, AI=m,  frankly,  on the  farmer=s side  on                                                              
this.  I  just don=t want to  see a situation where  property gets                                                              
transferred  and because they  don=t have this  notice in  it, for                                                              
whatever reason,  the farmer doesn=t  get the benefit  of claiming                                                              
the  protection  that  the  law   already  provides.@    Upon  Mr.                                                              
Fellman=s questioning, Representative  Kerttula clarified that she                                                              
was  asking  whether  anyone  in   Alaska  has  tried  to  protect                                                              
him/herself  from  a nuisance  lawsuit  in  which  the lack  of  a                                                              
warning to the property owners was an issue.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. FELLMAN answered  that he was not aware of any  such case.  He                                                              
pointed out that  there had been some situations  in the Delta and                                                              
Palmer-Wasilla areas in which some  concerns were raised by people                                                              
moving close  [to farm operations].   However, to the best  of his                                                              
knowledge, those situations were  resolved by negotiations through                                                              
the department.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG asked  whether  Mr. Fellman  had been  in                                                              
contact  with the  Alaska Real  Estate Commission  and the  Alaska                                                              
Board of Realtors regarding HB 341.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. FELLMAN responded  that the Alaska real estate  folks had been                                                              
in Representative  Harris=s office and that  Representative Harris                                                              
had brought  HB 341 to their  attention.  However, he  was unaware                                                              
as  to  what  was  actually  said or  how  they  felt  about  this                                                              
legislation.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0125                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  referred to page  1, line 10, and  noted his                                                              
concern  in regard  to  the use  of  Aor@ versus  Aand".   In  the                                                              
current  protections   for  agricultural  operations   as  private                                                              
nuisances, the language  used was Aand".  With the  Aor@ language,                                                              
he indicated there  could be a situation in which  there was not a                                                              
nuisance  on the  date  an agricultural  operation  began, but  it                                                              
turned into a  nuisance shortly thereafter.  He asked  if, in such                                                              
a situation,  he would  really be  prohibited from enjoining  that                                                              
operation simply  because the operation  wasn=t a nuisance  on the                                                              
date it started.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FELLMAN  reiterated  that  in   order  for  [an  agricultural                                                              
operation] to  be covered by  this plan, it  would have to  have a                                                              
soil and  water conservation  plan.  In  that plan, it  requires a                                                              
slow and  progressive growth.   He  posed a  situation in  which a                                                              
person begins with one cow and in  two weeks this person brings in                                                              
300 cows on  20 acres.  Mr.  Fellman believes it would  be safe to                                                              
assume that  if he had  a soil and  water conservation  plan, that                                                              
this person  would not  be following  that plan.   He pointed  out                                                              
that the  soil and water  conservation plan  has to be  registered                                                              
with and signed off by the Department  of Natural Resources (DNR).                                                              
Therefore, this person  would not be covered by this  law [HB 341]                                                              
because he didn=t follow his soil and water conservation plan.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0256                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  informed everyone that he  preferred that                                                              
HB 341  be held  over as it  places a  burden on property  owners.                                                              
The property  owners would have to  know that they are  within one                                                              
mile of a [farm] operation that may not necessarily know.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT recalled  similar legislation  in regard  to                                                              
shooting ranges  that were  placed in the  middle of  nowhere, but                                                              
people  slowly   began  to  [reside]  near  the   shooting  range.                                                              
However,  he  recalled  that  the  aforementioned  shooting  range                                                              
legislation  said, Aunless  the  character of  the shooting  range                                                              
operation  has  changed  substantially.@    In  other  words,  the                                                              
shooting range  could continue to do  [or offer] what it  has, but                                                              
couldn=t [expand its  activities].  However, HB 341  seems to take                                                              
a  broader  approach  and  explicitly  says,  Aregardless  of  any                                                              
subsequent expansion@.  This unlimited  capability of expansion is                                                              
of concern.   He also reiterated  his concern with the  use of the                                                              
word Aor@ on page 1, line 10.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FELLMAN   reiterated  that   [an  agricultural   facility  or                                                              
operation]  would  not  be  covered   without  a  soil  and  water                                                              
conservation  plan.  Mr. Fellman  noted  that he  understands  how                                                              
those plans develop  and work.  Therefore, he was  certain that an                                                              
individual with 20 acres and a few  cows would not be able to then                                                              
place 200-300  cows on that land.   Furthermore, Mr.  Fellman felt                                                              
it is a benefit to property owners  to be made aware that they are                                                              
in  an agricultural  area.   He  informed  the  committee that  in                                                              
Spokane, Washington,  there is  a Asniff  before you leap@  law in                                                              
order [to  educate those from  the city who  want to move  into an                                                              
agricultural area] in regard to what occurs in the rural areas.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 416                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred  to the top of page 2 and pointed                                                              
out that the language is not drafted  such that the soil and water                                                              
conservation plan  is a condition.   She offered to work  with Mr.                                                              
Manly  on that problem.   She  then referred  to  page 3, line  5,                                                              
where   aquatic  farming  is  included.   She  didn=t recall  that                                                              
aquatic farming has  been included in the right to  farm bills and                                                              
thus she wasn=t sure of the intention.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. FELLMAN pointed  out that the farmers in Prince  William Sound                                                              
are  new to  the industry.   He  informed the  committee that  the                                                              
legislation attempts  to include  as many diverse  farm operations                                                              
as possible and thus aquatic farming was included.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  asked if  [the term  Aaquatic  farming@]                                                              
refers to oyster farming since Alaska doesn=t allow fish farming.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. FELLMAN  replied yes and  informed the committee  that oysters                                                              
and sea  urchins are  what are  being targeted.   With time,  this                                                              
legislation could be refined; thus  he offered to do dome refining                                                              
[on HB 341] with Representative Kerttula=s office.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   MURKOWSKI  turned  to   the  term   Aagricultural                                                              
facility".  She  informed the committee that her  neighbor, who is                                                              
not in an agricultural  area, grows tomatoes and  sells them at an                                                              
agricultural market.  Although she  recognizes that is not what is                                                              
being  referred to  with  the definition  the  term  Aagricultural                                                              
facility,@ she  asked if  that person  would be classified  within                                                              
that definition.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FELLMAN  remarked  that  [the  legislation=s  intent]  is  to                                                              
protect anyone trying to do a good  job providing quality products                                                              
whether those  products are milk,  tea or tomatoes.   Furthermore,                                                              
[the  legislation intends  to] afford  them  protection such  that                                                              
they have  the ability to  grow with the  markets.  He  noted that                                                              
there  are some  cases in the  Lower 48  in which  someone is  not                                                              
allowed  to expand  in order  to meet  an expanding  market.   Mr.                                                              
Fellman referred  to a person  in Anchorage,  who with a  soil and                                                              
water conservation plan, could  receive help from Anchorage=s soil                                                              
and water  conservation district in  regard to providing  the best                                                              
quality product while protecting  the environment and those around                                                              
him.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0628                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SCOTT  MILLER, Farmer;  Chair, Delta  Farm  Bureau, testified  via                                                              
teleconference from  Delta Junction.  He announced  that the Delta                                                              
Farm Bureau supports  HB 341.  From his own  experience in farming                                                              
in  the  Delta area  since  1981,  Mr. Miller  has  seen  numerous                                                              
instances  in  which  people  knowingly  moved  next  to  a  farm.                                                              
However,  those people  created hardships  because  they were  not                                                              
happy  with  the  practices  that  took  place  under  the  normal                                                              
circumstances of that  farm.  Therefore, HB 341  is appropriate in                                                              
order to  protect the  stability and  long-term growth  of Alaskan                                                              
agriculture.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT  WELLS, Director,  Division of  Agriculture, Department  of                                                              
Natural Resources, testified from  the Matanuska-Susitna area.  He                                                              
announced  that in  general  DNR is  in  support of  right-to-farm                                                              
legislation.   Mr. Wells  offered to  work with committee  members                                                              
and the sponsor to make improvements to HB 341.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced  that public testimony on HB  341 would be                                                              
closed since no one else wished to  testify.  He further announced                                                              
that  HB 341  would be  held since  the committee  doesn=t have  a                                                              
quorum; perhaps the  language could be worked on  in the meantime.                                                              
He commented  that he  had difficulty  in considering  bees  to be                                                              
livestock.    He referred  to  page 3,  line  3, which  refers  to                                                              
livestock  and  poultry; he  said  that language  seems  redundant                                                              
because  on  page  3,  line  11,  the  definition  of  Alivestock@                                                              
includes poultry.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  related her belief that [everyone]  would be                                                              
better off if  legislation such as HB 341 was  passed before there                                                              
are problems.   Furthermore, she stressed her  support of planning                                                              
and  zoning  which  could identify  where  agricultural  uses  are                                                              
allowed in order to help protect a person=s livelihood.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT  commented,  AIt=s  good  to  be  proactive  versus                                                              
reactive.@                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA noted her  agreement with  Representative                                                              
James.   She reiterated her concern  of [possibly] creating  a way                                                              
for  a property  owner  to  say that  he/she  didn=t receive  this                                                              
notice, which would be problematic for the farmer.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that  it seems that when real estate                                                              
[agents] sell  property, they  should have  maps.  She  reiterated                                                              
her belief  that there should be  agricultural zoning in  order to                                                              
protect agricultural use.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT again announced that HB 341 would be held.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB 329 - INFO AND INFORMED CONSENT FOR ABORTION                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE  FOR HOUSE  BILL NO. 329,  "An Act  relating to                                                              
services  and information  available to  pregnant women and  other                                                              
persons;  and requiring  informed  consent and  a 24-hour  waiting                                                              
period  before an  abortion may  be  performed unless  there is  a                                                              
medical emergency." [Before the committee was CSSSHB 329(HES).]                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0984                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN  COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature,  testified                                                              
as sponsor of SSHB  329.  He stated that he'd  introduced SSHB 329                                                              
in  order  to  elevate  the  discussion  on  what  is  already  in                                                              
regulation, 12  AAC 40.070.   Section 1  of the bill  requires the                                                              
Department  of  Health  &  Social Services  (DHSS)  to  develop  a                                                              
standard   information  brochure   that   physicians  would   make                                                              
available to a  woman considering an abortion, and  to provide 24-                                                              
hour notice and a toll-free number  for information.  This section                                                              
also  creates  definitions  in  state  statute in  regard  to  the                                                              
following  terms:   conception,  fertilization,  gestational  age,                                                              
pregnant and  unborn child.   Section  2 addresses abortions  that                                                              
may  not be  performed  until the  informed  consent provision  is                                                              
fulfilled;  the informed  provision is  in Section  4.  Section  5                                                              
provides for severability  due to the nature of  this issue, which                                                              
will probably be  decided in court.  He noted that  [DHSS] and the                                                              
Department of Law [DOL] have said  they will challenge [SSHB 329].                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  turned to the  reason why he chose  to put                                                              
SSHB 329  together.  He  began by saying  that this is  a national                                                              
discussion as to when an unborn child  is valuable.  He noted that                                                              
the  Alaska House  of  Representatives  just passed  a  resolution                                                              
regarding  fetal  alcohol  syndrome,  which  [indicates  that  the                                                              
legislators]  clearly value  that  life.   However,  in regard  to                                                              
abortion, he didn=t  believe that women are given  the appropriate                                                              
or  proper  information.   He  pointed  out  that often  there  is                                                              
coercion  from the  father,  the family  and  society in  general.                                                              
Representative  Coghill  believes   that  this  legislation  could                                                              
elevate the  discussion such that  the best medical  and practical                                                              
information could be placed in a booklet.  H                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL noted  that he  had a  booklet similar  to                                                              
what would be  required under this legislation.   This legislation                                                              
would  require [that  the booklet]  contain information  regarding                                                              
what  would  occur  during  pregnancy,   in  two-week  gestational                                                              
periods.  This  [attempts] to obtain the best  medical information                                                              
available.   Furthermore,  [this legislation]  requests a  24-hour                                                              
waiting  period   in  order  that   the  woman  would   have  [the                                                              
aforementioned information  and] time to reflect.   Representative                                                              
Coghill  reiterated that  [SSHB 329] would,  with the  information                                                              
booklet and  the 24-hour waiting  period, elevate what  is already                                                              
in  Alaska=s code.    Much  of the  other  items are  already  [in                                                              
place].  He indicated  that the informed consent  provision is not                                                              
necessarily  the question  but rather  the question  is really  in                                                              
regard to how far the informed consent should go.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1194                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL stated  his view  that it  is a matter  of                                                              
dignity of the  woman and life.  He acknowledged  that there would                                                              
be  some legal  challenges to  this.   He  also acknowledged  that                                                              
there is  some strong  opposition  to this in  regard to  privacy.                                                              
However, he  related his belief  [that this legislation]  provides                                                              
the woman  privacy and [information  to make an  informed choice].                                                              
The booklet  will have  social services  information and  describe                                                              
the  responsibility   of  the  father  to  the   degree  possible.                                                              
Representative  Coghill  concluded by  saying  that  SSHB 329  was                                                              
introduced on  the principle  that life is  worth valuing  and the                                                              
woman should be provided good medical  information.  He noted that                                                              
the committee  was welcome to review  the booklet that he  has and                                                              
he offered to answer any questions.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1318                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DIXIE HOOD,  Licensed Marriage  & Family  Therapist, testified  in                                                              
opposition  to  HB 329,  Awhich  would  impose a  24-hour  waiting                                                              
period  on women seeking  an abortion  and which  would require  a                                                              
woman  to   go  through  biased   counseling  before   getting  an                                                              
abortion.@    Ms.  Hood  stated   that  she  favored  health  care                                                              
professionals  providing a  patient with  informed consent  before                                                              
undertaking a  medical procedure.   To her knowledge, there  is no                                                              
reason  to think  that women  seeking abortions  are not  provided                                                              
with all  the information necessary  to make a  reasoned decision.                                                              
She  said,  AMandatory,  anti-choice  lectures  don=t  give  women                                                              
unbiased, meaningful medical information  but rather they are told                                                              
a  laundry  list  of  possible  complications  from  the  abortion                                                              
procedure; complications which  are rare.@  This legislation would                                                              
require  that  false  medical  information  be given  to  a  woman                                                              
because [the  legislation] instructs   a doctor to inform  a woman                                                              
that one  of the risks  of abortion includes  breast cancer.   Ms.                                                              
Hood said that she  is not aware of any studies,  studies that are                                                              
accepted  in  the  medical  community,  that  prove  a  connection                                                              
between abortion and breast cancer.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.   HOOD  stated   that  legislators   shouldn=t  tell   medical                                                              
professionals  what is important  and not  important in  regard to                                                              
advising  a  patient  about  a  medical   procedure.    She  said,                                                              
AAbortions  are  being  singled  out  for  the  biased  counseling                                                              
requirement not  because the sponsors are concerned  about women=s                                                              
health,  but  because  they  want  to try  to  coerce  women  into                                                              
carrying  their pregnancy  to  term by  whatever means  possible.@                                                              
Ms. Hood noted her opposition to  the 24-hour waiting period under                                                              
this  bill.   She  pointed  out that  medical  professionals  that                                                              
perform  abortions in  Alaska are  few  and thus  many women  must                                                              
travel  great  distances to  obtain  an  abortion.   Therefore,  a                                                              
waiting period  places much greater  expense and  inconvenience on                                                              
women.  Furthermore,  a waiting period places a  woman=s health at                                                              
risk.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  HOOD discussed  how  a woman  may  have to  reschedule  work,                                                              
arrange child care or juggle school  responsibilities along with a                                                              
provider=s scheduling issues, which  with the waiting period could                                                              
result in a delay  of ten days to two weeks or  even longer.  Such                                                              
a  delay  could  push  a first  trimester  abortion  to  a  second                                                              
trimester  abortion   and  thus   a  more  routine   procedure  is                                                              
transformed into  a more complicated  a dangerous procedure.   Ms.                                                              
Hood  urged  the committee  to  oppose  this legislation  as  such                                                              
decisions should be left to a woman and her doctor.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1494                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DENISE BURKE, Staff Counsel, Americans  United for Life, testified                                                              
via  teleconference from  San Antonio,  Texas.   She informed  the                                                              
committee  that  she  was  present   in  order  to  testify  as  a                                                              
constitutional  expert on  HB 329.   She stated:  AHouse  Bill 329                                                              
substantially complies  with the law  upheld by the  United States                                                              
Supreme Court in the case of Planned  Parenthood v. Casey and with                                                            
the exceptions  of some  concerns that we  have over  Section [AS]                                                              
18.16.010(a)(4), the law is constitutional.@                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. BURKE  noted that  she had  provided Representative  Coghill=s                                                              
office with a memorandum that proposes  some additional changes to                                                              
HB 329.   The proposed changes  are for clarity purposes  and will                                                              
enhance the  constitutionality of  this legislation.   She related                                                              
her  belief  that  HB  329  provides  this  legislature  with  the                                                              
opportunity to  guarantee that women  will have access to  all the                                                              
relevant  information necessary  to  make an  informed and  mature                                                              
decision.   [This legislation] is  a constitutional  expression of                                                              
the state=s interest in the health  and safety of women as well as                                                              
the state=s interest in protecting unborn children.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BURKE reiterated  that  [legislation] such  as  HB 329  would                                                              
allow a woman to understand the full  consequences of her decision                                                              
concerning her  pregnancy.  She said,  AIt is not an  undue burden                                                              
for a  woman=s decision  to be  thoughtful and  informed.@   House                                                              
Bill 329  will ensure  that the decision  is thoughtful  and well-                                                              
informed.  Furthermore, Alaska furthers  the legitimate purpose of                                                              
reducing  the risk  that a  woman may  elect an  abortion only  to                                                              
later discover  that she  was not fully  informed.  Therefore,  HB                                                              
329 ensures  that a woman=s health  is protected by  providing all                                                              
the  necessary information  to  make an  informed  decision.   She                                                              
pointed out, AIt  [this legislation] also  adds >meat= to Alaska=s                                                              
interest  in protecting  unborn  children.   It  is  not an  undue                                                              
burden for  a state  to favor  childbirth over  abortion or  for a                                                              
state to  attempt to  persuade a woman  to choose childbirth  over                                                              
abortion.@    She informed  the  committee,  AThe  [U.S.]  Supreme                                                              
Court  has  explicitly  stated  that   a  state  may  further  its                                                              
legitimate goal of  protecting the life of the  unborn by enacting                                                              
legislation  aimed  at ensuring  a  decision  that is  mature  and                                                              
informed,  even  if  when  in  doing  so  the  state  expresses  a                                                              
preference for childbirth over abortion.@                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. BURKE turned to the 24-hour waiting  period, which she said is                                                              
constitutional under  the [U.S.]  Supreme Court precedent  set out                                                              
in the  United States v.  Casey.  The  notion that ideas  would be                                                            
more informed  and deliberate if  there is a period  of reflection                                                              
is  not   unreasonable.    House   Bill  329  provides   important                                                              
information  for the background  of a  very important decision  as                                                              
well as  affording time  for reflection  and consideration  of the                                                              
information.   In  regard  to the  concern  that this  legislation                                                              
provides  biased   counseling,  she   pointed  out  that   HB  329                                                              
explicitly  provides  for objective,  nonjudgmental  and  accurate                                                              
information.  In  conclusion, Ms. Burke reiterated  that this law,                                                              
save  the  concerns  surrounding  the  domiciliary  provision,  is                                                              
constitutional and should be enacted.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1761                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  related her understanding  from Ms. Burke                                                              
that   under   the   Planned  Parenthood   case,   this   law   is                                                            
constitutional as drafted.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. BURKE  replied yes and noted  that this law  is constitutional                                                              
under Planned  Parenthood  v. Casey and  several other  subsequent                                                            
state law cases.   She noted that 28 states  have enacted informed                                                              
consent  legislation   similar  to   this  legislation   and  [the                                                              
legislation] that  was enacted under Planned Parenthood  v. Casey.                                                            
Currently,  25 of  those laws  are  in effect  and have  withstood                                                              
constitutional challenge;  the remaining  three are in  the courts                                                              
now.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA asked if  Ms. Burke has  had a  chance to                                                              
review the Alaska cases on this.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. BURKE  specified that  she has reviewed  the federal  case law                                                              
governing  a woman=s  right to  an  abortion and  thus she  hasn=t                                                              
specifically  reviewed any state  law cases.   She noted  that she                                                              
has thoroughly reviewed  HB 329 and compared it with  the law that                                                              
was upheld  under Planned  Parenthood  v. Casey  and thus she  was                                                            
confident that HB  329 is constitutional.  In  further response to                                                              
Representative  Kerttula,   Ms.  Burke  stated  that   she  is  an                                                              
attorney.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1869                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOE MALICK (ph) testified briefly in support of HB 329.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1957                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEBBIE JOSLIN  testified via  teleconference from Delta  Junction.                                                              
She related her personal story in  which she was 22 weeks pregnant                                                              
when, after  an ultrasound, she was  told that her  child, Isaiah,                                                              
had multiple  anomalies.   She then  spoke over  the phone  with a                                                              
perinatologist in Anchorage and made  arrangements to have another                                                              
ultrasound.   During  the phone  conversation, the  perinatologist                                                              
urged Ms.  Joslin to  terminate the  pregnancy  as the baby  would                                                              
probably die anyway,  the medical expenses would be  too great and                                                              
Ms. Joslin=s life was also probably in danger.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  JOSLIN  continued,  noting  that  the  perinatologist  hadn't                                                              
examined her at  this point.  Ms. Joslin made  an appointment with                                                              
this doctor.  At the appointment,  she and her husband first saw a                                                              
genetic counselor  who reviewed some family history;  [the genetic                                                              
counselor]  explained  that  Isaiah  probably had  Trisomy  18,  a                                                              
chromosomal  abnormality.   Ms.  Joslin  noted that  [the  genetic                                                              
counselor] expressed  surprise that she  and her husband  were not                                                              
considering  terminating  the pregnancy  and  the genetic  counsel                                                              
asked several  times whether they  wanted to consider  terminating                                                              
the  pregnancy.    Then  another ultrasound  was  performed  by  a                                                              
technician after which  the perinatologist took over  the exam and                                                              
listed  the   following  anomalies:     brain  cyst,   missing  or                                                              
unconnected  stomach, hypoplastic  left heart,  eyes not  properly                                                              
spaced,   underdeveloped  chin,   something   wrong  with   spinal                                                              
development, something  wrong with his penis,  rocker-bottom feet,                                                              
possibly  an extra  toe  and fluid  in  the abdominal  cavity  and                                                              
lungs.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN said she and her husband  were told the fluid indicated                                                              
that  Isaiah was  already in  congestive heart  failure and  would                                                              
never make  it to his due date  in May, and furthermore  if Isaiah                                                              
were to live, he would never respond  to them.  She said they were                                                              
also  told  that  all  Trisomy  infants   were  severely  mentally                                                              
retarded.   [The perinatologist]  described a somewhat  vegetative                                                              
state [that Isaiah  would be in]; however, she said  that he would                                                              
probably be stillborn  any day and if he was born  alive, he would                                                              
only live for a few minutes.  Later  the estimation as to how long                                                              
Isaiah would live  was adjusted to a few hours, and  then to maybe                                                              
a  day at  most.   Finally, the  doctors  [estimated Isaiah  could                                                              
live] a few days  [if he were born alive].  The  Joslins agreed to                                                              
an amniocentesis  that day  in order  to determine whether  Isaiah                                                              
actually did have Trisomy 18.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN noted  the hope of herself and her  husband that Isaiah                                                              
would not have Trisomy 18 and that  they could begin to make plans                                                              
for  heart  surgery.    However,  [the  perinatologist]  told  the                                                              
Joslins that  doctors will  not operate  on Trisomy infants  since                                                              
they  all  die  in  infancy  anyway.    Ms.  Joslin  informed  the                                                              
committee  of the heavy  hearts she  and her  husband had  as they                                                              
drove back to  Delta discussing plans for Isaiah=s  funeral versus                                                              
their plans and dreams for him.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN continued and informed  the committee that within a few                                                              
days, she  received  a call from  the genetic  counselor with  the                                                              
preliminary  test  results which  showed  Isaiah  had Trisomy  13.                                                              
When asked  how Trisomy 13 differed  from Trisomy 18,  the genetic                                                              
counselor  said  [Trisomy  13]  was  worse.    Again  the  genetic                                                              
counselor asked  about termination, and again Ms.  Joslin informed                                                              
her that she  and her husband were not interested  in [terminating                                                              
the pregnancy].   Then, almost immediately, Ms.  Joslin received a                                                              
call  from   her  doctor  in   Fairbanks,  who  asked   her  about                                                              
termination.    Again  she  told  her  doctor  that  she  was  not                                                              
interested in  [terminating the pregnancy].   The  doctor informed                                                              
Ms. Joslin  that her life was in  danger and that since  she chose                                                              
to continue  the pregnancy  she could no  longer be her  doctor as                                                              
she was a general practitioner and  not qualified to handle such a                                                              
case.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN said that she then began  seeing an osteopath doctor in                                                              
Delta and  an OB/GYN in  Fairbanks.   She informed them  both what                                                              
she had been  told about the baby  and about her own  health.  The                                                              
OB/GYN doctor could not understand  why she had been told her life                                                              
was in danger.   The OB/GYN  doctor treated Ms. Joslin  during the                                                              
remainder  of  the   pregnancy  and  Ms.  Joslin   never  had  any                                                              
complications or  problems beyond the usual complaints  from which                                                              
pregnant women suffer.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN  returned  to the results  of the  amniocentesis.   She                                                              
informed  the  committee   that  a  couple  of   weeks  after  the                                                              
preliminary results,  the genetic counselor called  with the final                                                              
results,  which were  that  Isaiah  had Trisomy  13.   Again,  the                                                              
genetic counselor  asked   Ms. Joslin  about termination  to which                                                              
Ms. Joslin replied  no again.  Ms. Joslin said when  she asked the                                                              
genetic  counselor what  she would  do  if she  was interested  in                                                              
terminating  the  pregnancy,  the genetic  counselor  became  very                                                              
excited and informed Ms. Joslin that  "there is the most wonderful                                                              
clinic  in  Kansas."   In  response  to  Ms. Joslin,  the  genetic                                                              
counselor affirmed that she was referring  to Dr. Tiller's clinic.                                                              
The genetic counselor  asked if Ms. Joslin knew him,  to which Ms.                                                              
Joslin  replied,  "No,  but  I  know  about  him."    The  genetic                                                              
counselor offered to have other women  who had abortions call  Ms.                                                              
Joslin, but she declined.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN continued.  She indicated  the genetic counselor sensed                                                              
that  she was  not interested  in  pursuing   [termination of  the                                                              
pregnancy]  further  and thus  she  told  Ms.  Joslin, in  a  very                                                              
apologetic voice,  that there  is a parent  support group  that is                                                              
rather positive - as though positive  is a bad thing.  The genetic                                                              
counselor then  informed Ms.  Joslin that  she had information  on                                                              
this group, including  an 800 number.  The genetic  counselor also                                                              
informed  Ms. Joslin  that  she had  pamphlets  and  books in  her                                                              
office that gave  detailed information, including  pictures, about                                                              
Trisomy 18, 13 and other related disorders.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.   JOSLIN  reported   that  she'd   called  S.O.F.T.   (Support                                                              
Organization  for  Trisomy  18,  13  and  Related  Disorders)  and                                                              
discovered that the group is positive,  but realistic.  Ms. Joslin                                                              
talked with  a woman [in S.O.F.T.]  over the phone  about Isaiah's                                                              
diagnosis,   and   this   woman   told  Ms.   Joslin   that   [the                                                              
perinatologist  and the genetic  counselor] were probably  correct                                                              
in regard to Isaiah=s future, however  there was a chance he could                                                              
live. [The  woman from  S.O.F.T.] talked to  Ms. Joslin  about the                                                              
parents to  which Ms. Joslin  recalled asking, "Parents,  you mean                                                              
they have  live children?"   [The woman  from S.O.F.T.]  said that                                                              
some  did have  live  children.    Upon further  questioning,  Ms.                                                              
Joslin  learned that  the age of  the children  varied, but  there                                                              
were  a few  children  who were  teenagers  and even  a couple  of                                                              
adults.   [The woman  from  S.O.F.T.] took  Ms. Joslin=s name  and                                                              
address and told her she would send a family packet right a way.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN  noted that she'd  also requested the  books [S.O.F.T.]                                                              
had available:   Trisomy 13, A Guideline for Families  and Care of                                                            
the Infant;  and  Child with  Trisomy 18  or 13.   These were  the                                                          
books  the  genetic  counselor  had described  as  having  in  her                                                              
office.   Although the information  was heartbreaking,  it offered                                                              
some hope and  some help which were two things  the Joslins hadn't                                                              
received much  of.   Ms. Joslin  remarked, ANot  only did  some of                                                              
these  children  live, they  played  and  smiled and  laughed  and                                                              
talked and  learned things and  showed affection and  responded to                                                              
love and affection.@                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  JOSLIN informed  the  committee that  [she  and her  husband]                                                              
located  a wonderful  pediatrician  in Fairbanks  who agreed  that                                                              
Isaiah's chances  were not  good; however, she  was willing  to do                                                              
what she could  to help him.   [The Joslins] decided to  hire this                                                              
pediatrician and  made plans to  deliver their baby  in Fairbanks.                                                              
Only 11 days before  his due date, Isaiah John Joslin  was born at                                                              
Fairbanks Memorial  Hospital.   Isaiah weighed  6 pounds,  l ounce                                                              
and  was 18  1/4 inches  long; he  had  lots of  bright red  hair.                                                              
Isaiah had  difficulty breathing  when he was  first born  and the                                                              
doctors and  nurses checked him over;  they could find no  sign of                                                              
the  problems   seen  earlier  on  three   different  ultrasounds.                                                              
However, Isaiah  suffered from a ventricular septal  defect (VSD),                                                              
a hole in  his heart.  Although  VSD is very serious, it  is a far                                                              
cry from the problems he had earlier.   She informed the committee                                                              
that Isaiah required oxygen and a  nasal gastric tube for feeding.                                                              
Still, Isaiah looked so normal that  even the nursing staff agreed                                                              
he should be retested.  The test  results again showed that Isaiah                                                              
had Trisomy  13.  Isaiah  stayed in the  hospital for 12  days and                                                              
then came home where  he lived for 20 days.   Ms. Joslin remarked,                                                              
AThose  were some  of  the hardest  but  the sweetest  days of  my                                                              
life.@                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN  explained that  she told the  committee this  story in                                                              
order that they understand why she asks them to pass [SSHB 329].                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-54, SIDE A                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN continued  by noting that she requested  pamphlets from                                                              
other  states;  she  noted  that  the  committee  may  have  those                                                              
pamphlets before it.  She informed  the committee that she was not                                                              
psychologically   harmed  by   seeing  the   photographs  in   the                                                              
pamphlets.  However,  if anything produced psychological  harm for                                                              
her, it  was the pressure  from the doctors  to have  an abortion.                                                              
She said  that  talking to  other doctors, doing her  own research                                                              
and reading  about Trisomy  infants  as well as  her own  personal                                                              
experience [has  lead her to] believe  that her life was  never in                                                              
any danger.  Yet,  an undue burden was created at  a time when she                                                              
already had plenty  to worry about.  Therefore,  she believes this                                                              
[undue  burden]  was done  to  try and  convince  her  to have  an                                                              
abortion.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  JOSLIN reminded  the committee  that  she was  told that  all                                                              
Trisomy infants  die, although she  now knows that between  90 and                                                              
95 percent  of all  Trisomy infants  die before  one year  of age.                                                              
She  realized that  doesn't  leave  much room  for  hope, but  she                                                              
emphasized that  it is quite different  than saying they  all die.                                                              
Ms. Joslin also  noted that she was not told  about [S.O.F.T.] for                                                              
over two weeks,  Anot until they  had finally given up  on talking                                                              
me into  an abortion.@   She  acknowledged that  one may  say that                                                              
[the doctors]  were not  sure Isaiah had  Trisomy until  the final                                                              
results were available.   Although that may be so,  they were sure                                                              
enough to continually  mention termination.  She  pointed out that                                                              
she drove  350 miles  to see the  doctor and  was never  shown the                                                              
written information  about this disorder  that was in  the office.                                                              
However, [the  doctors] were  careful to  tell her every  negative                                                              
thing about [carrying]  the baby [to term] and she  was never told                                                              
of any of  the risks, either  physical or emotional, of  having an                                                              
abortion.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN  said she believes  the doctors who  repeatedly brought                                                              
up  termination  probably meant  well.    She said,  AThe  problem                                                              
comes in  where they apparently  believed that their  professional                                                              
status,  or their medical  degrees  placed them  in a position  to                                                              
know better  than me what was best  for me, my family  and my baby                                                              
and that  simply is not true.@   She further stated, AGiving  life                                                              
to Isaiah was hard on our family;  but it wasn't too hard.  It was                                                              
expensive; but it wasn't too expensive.   It was hard on the other                                                              
children; but it   wasn't too hard on the other  children.  Giving                                                              
life to Isaiah blessed our  family, including the other children.@                                                              
She explained that due to Isaiah=s  heart condition, he was always                                                              
lethargic and  sleepy, but  he was never  in pain.   The equipment                                                              
monitoring his oxygen saturation  rate showed that whenever he was                                                              
held or  shown affection,  he was  aware of  it as his  saturation                                                              
levels would soar when he was being Aloved on.@                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN offered  an example:  her five-year-old  daughter Emily                                                              
loves  to recall  the night  before  Isaiah died  when his  oxygen                                                              
saturation  level rose from  the 60s  to 100 when  he was  laid in                                                              
Emily's arms.  Ms.  Joslin said, AThere seems to  be a feeling out                                                              
there that  a successful  life is  one that is  free from  pain or                                                              
suffering  or trials,  and that  isn't  true.   Isaiah's life  was                                                              
successful.   We  loved him,  and he  loved us.@   She noted  that                                                              
since  Isaiah's   death  [the  family]  has  been   comforted  and                                                              
encouraged by reading  of other families with  Trisomy children in                                                              
the S.O.F.T. newsletter.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0241                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN said  she would like for every mother  to make the same                                                              
decision she  did, but she realizes  that won't happen.   However,                                                              
every mother deserves to have all  of the information pertinent to                                                              
her  situation  so  that  she can  make  an  intelligent  informed                                                              
decision.  Therefore, Ms. Joslin  stated that voting against [SSHB                                                              
329], in  effect says, that women  are not competent enough  to be                                                              
trusted with  the facts regarding  the health of their  own bodies                                                              
and that of their  unborn children.   She further  stated, AA >no=                                                              
vote says  that you  have no compassion  for families  and believe                                                              
that doctors  are better  suited to make  decisions for  women and                                                              
their  unborn babies.    A >no=  vote is  a  vote against  women=s                                                              
rights.@  On the other hand, a "yes"  vote for [SSHB 329] sends an                                                              
entirely  different  message.   She  said,  AA vote  for  informed                                                              
consent says that  you have respect for the intelligence  of women                                                              
and  believe that  they  have the  right to  be  trusted with  the                                                              
information  necessary to  make  decisions for  themselves.@   She                                                              
noted her hope that  this body of legislators will  be in favor of                                                              
women's rights.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0326                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JUDY CAVANAUGH  testified in opposition  to [SSHB 329],  which she                                                              
believes  shows  a  lack  of trust  in  Alaskan  women  and  their                                                              
doctors.   Furthermore,  she believes that  government should  not                                                              
interfere in  a personal medical  decision.   She said, AAs  an ER                                                              
nurse,  I  know   that  the  standards  of  medical  practice  and                                                              
institutional policies and state  laws already require that health                                                              
care  practitioners   provide  all  patients  with   accurate  and                                                              
unbiased  information  regarding the  risks  and  benefits of  any                                                              
medical procedure.  This is  called informed consent.@  She stated                                                              
that  [SSHB 329]  singles  out abortions  from  all other  medical                                                              
procedures.    She  then  pointed  out  that  even  dangerous  and                                                              
complicated  surgeries  do not  have  a legally  required  waiting                                                              
period.   This  legislation  requires  doctors  to give  a  biased                                                              
lecture.  Furthermore, this legislation  implies that women do not                                                              
think  through their  decisions  nor are  they  capable of  making                                                              
their own  decisions.   Moreover, this  legislation illustrates  a                                                              
lack of respect for women.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CAVANAUGH  informed  the  committee  that she  has  a  Juneau                                                              
Coalition for Pro-Choice  telephone in her home.   Every month Ms.                                                              
Cavanaugh receives  one to ten  phone calls from  women throughout                                                              
Southeast  Alaska who  are  seeking information  about  abortions.                                                              
Without exception,  these women have  thought long and  hard about                                                              
their decisions.  Ms. Cavanaugh mentioned  that there is already a                                                              
built-in delay from the time a woman  discovers she is pregnant to                                                              
her decision.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CAVANAUGH noted  that  she spends  hours  talking with  women                                                              
regarding  their  choices.   Then  this  legislation  requires  an                                                              
additional  24-hour   waiting  period   after  already   making  a                                                              
decision,  which  Ms.  Cavanaugh   felt  is  insulting  to  women.                                                              
Furthermore,  having  to leave  Juneau  for  an abortion  poses  a                                                              
hardship,  sometimes   a  financial  hardship,  for   many  women.                                                              
However, the  greatest hardship is  almost always having  to leave                                                              
Juneau and a  supportive environment.  To require  another 24-hour                                                              
waiting  period  creates  an additional  burden,  financially  and                                                              
emotionally.   Furthermore,  [the  24-hour  waiting period]  could                                                              
result in a  first-trimester abortion becoming  a second-trimester                                                              
abortion.    In   conclusion,  Ms.  Cavanaugh  stated   that  this                                                              
legislation will not provide better  more informed health care for                                                              
the women of Alaska  but rather it will further limit  access to a                                                              
legal medical procedure.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0543                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEBORAH  SCHORR,   Juneau  Pro-Choice   Coalition,  testified   in                                                              
opposition to  [SSHB 329].   She informed  the committee  that the                                                              
Juneau Pro-Choice  Coalition has  identified more than  5,000 Pro-                                                              
Choice voters in  House districts 3 and 4.   The Juneau Pro-Choice                                                              
Coalition  is a member  of the  Alaska Pro-Choice  Alliance.   Ms.                                                              
Schorr  said  that  [SSHB  329] does  two  things.    First,  this                                                              
legislation would  require health  professionals to  provide false                                                              
and  misleading information  to women  seeking an  abortion.   She                                                              
identified this  as an attempt  to prey  on the emotions  of these                                                              
women  in order  to frighten  them  into not  having an  abortion.                                                              
Second, this legislation  would make it more difficult  to have an                                                              
abortion.  Again, this would be done  in the hope that women would                                                              
be  discouraged   from  seeking   this  safe  and   legal  medical                                                              
procedure.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHORR continued.   She said this legislation  requires that a                                                              
health care  professional  show the woman  photographs of  fetuses                                                              
and describe  the anatomical and physiological  characteristics of                                                              
a fetus, which is a tactic well known  to anti-abortion extremist.                                                              
This legislation  further  requires that  women be informed  about                                                              
adverse   psychological   effects   of  abortion;   however,   she                                                              
questioned  the psychological  effects of  sitting through  biased                                                              
counseling  for a  woman who  has  been raped  or is  a victim  of                                                              
incest.   Ms. Schorr informed the  committee of a  study performed                                                              
by  the World  Health  Organization  that  could find  no  medical                                                              
evidence    that    abortion    causes    psychological    injury.                                                              
Additionally, this  legislation would  require that women  be told                                                              
about  health  risks from  an  abortion,  such as  breast  cancer.                                                              
However,  there  is  no  scientific   evidence  that  an  abortion                                                              
increases a woman=s risk of breast cancer.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SCHORR requested  that  the committee  leave  the details  of                                                              
informed  consent to  those that  understand the  health risks  of                                                              
pregnancy and  abortion.   She reiterated  that abortion  is being                                                              
singled  out  because  the  sponsors   want  to  outlaw  abortion.                                                              
Furthermore,  the  24-hour  waiting  period  increases  a  woman=s                                                              
health risks.   She noted that  many women, particularly  those in                                                              
rural Alaska, must  travel far to reach the nearest  clinic.  With                                                              
the  aforementioned  hardships faced  by  these  women, a  24-hour                                                              
waiting period  could delay an  abortion to the  second trimester.                                                              
She informed the  committee that in states where  a waiting period                                                              
has  been  imposed,  rates  of  second  trimester  abortions  have                                                              
increased.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SCHORR continued.    She pointed  out  that second  trimester                                                              
abortions are riskier  to women and more complicated.   Ms. Schorr                                                              
stated,  AThe harm  from  the restrictions  the  sponsors of  this                                                              
bill wish  to impose are  felt most by  those who have  the fewest                                                              
resources:    low  income,  minors,  rural  women,  working  women                                                              
without insurance or sick leave  and battered women.@  She further                                                              
stated,  AMany  in this  legislature  talk a  great  deal of  less                                                              
governmental intrusion  and this would be a good  time to practice                                                              
what  you preach.    Leave these  matters up  to  women and  their                                                              
doctors.@                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT   referred  to   Ms.  Schorr=s  remark   that  this                                                              
legislation  would   require  physicians  to  provide   false  and                                                              
misleading information.   He  asked if Ms.  Schorr could  cite the                                                              
section to which she is referring.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHORR said she didn=t have the bill in front of her.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT remarked  that perhaps  Dr. Isada,  who is  online,                                                              
could Ahelp us out.@                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0830                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DR. NELSON  ISADA, Perinatologist,  testified via  teleconference.                                                              
He informed the committee that he  is one of two perinatologist in                                                              
the state.   When there  are problems, folks  end up seeing  he or                                                              
the  other  perinatologist.   Dr.  Isada  acknowledged  that  many                                                              
physicians  are adamantly  opposed  to abortion  and he  respected                                                              
that position.   However, he [and the other perinatologist  in the                                                              
state]   get  the   phone   calls  [from   physicians]   regarding                                                              
Ahandling@   a  situation  because   [the  physician]   can=t  say                                                              
anything due  to his/her position in  the church, et cetera.   Dr.                                                              
Isada  stated, AI  do not  come to  you as  an outside  consultant                                                              
with a  political agenda from  another state.@  He  specified that                                                              
he  [and the  other  perinatologist  in the  state]  see folks  in                                                              
crisis.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
DR. ISADA  posed a  situation in  which a woman  who is  ten weeks                                                              
pregnant  has  critical  aortic  stenosis  from  which  she  could                                                              
possibly  die.   He assumed  that he  would show  the patient  the                                                              
pictures and  the pamphlet.  If  the woman elects to  continue the                                                              
pregnancy and  succumbs to her  disease, he [predicted]  that this                                                              
woman=s family would  charge that he gave biased  counseling.  For                                                              
these types  of things, the  move in health  plans is to  have co-                                                              
liability.   However, Dr. Isada  saw no co-liability  provision in                                                              
[SSHB 329].   Therefore, he was concerned with the  effects of the                                                              
bill.  Furthermore, he echoed earlier  comments regarding the fact                                                              
that there  already Alaskan statutes  that hold [physicians]  to a                                                              
very high standard for informed consent.   The AMA [Alaska Medical                                                              
Association] and  the American Medical  Association, of  which Dr.                                                              
Isada is  not a member,  and the American  College of  OB/GYNs, of                                                              
which  Dr. Isada  is a  member, are  opposed  to such  legislative                                                              
involvement in  the informed consent  process.  He  explained that                                                              
the former example was used [to illustrate]  that informed consent                                                              
is part  of the decision-making process.   The process  of getting                                                              
[to  the procedure]  and  discussing  the  pros, cons,  risks  and                                                              
benefits is the difficult portion.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
DR. ISADA  turned to  the issue of  [physicians being  required to                                                              
provide] possibly misleading information,  which is related to the                                                              
controversy  that  breast cancer  is  [linked  to] abortion.    He                                                              
pointed out, AOne  error or fact that has been  omitted is with an                                                              
abortion one  of the complications  is continued pregnancy.@   Dr.                                                              
Isada informed the committee that  the only lawsuit that named him                                                              
was in  1984 when a  woman elected to  continue a pregnancy.   The                                                              
woman delivered a  healthy baby by C-section.   However, the woman                                                              
sued Dr.  Isada based  on the pain  and suffering she  experienced                                                              
due  to  having a  normal  child.   Although  that  [lawsuit]  was                                                              
stopped,  this   is  an  issue  for  credentials   and  insurance.                                                              
Therefore,  he  reiterated  [his concern]  with  co-liability  and                                                              
errors of fact.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
DR.  ISADA addressed  the  testimony of  Ms.  Burke regarding  her                                                              
experience  with a Trisomy  child.   Dr. Isada  noted that  he has                                                              
worked  with  the other  perinatologist  in  Alaska and  from  his                                                              
perception,   he  has   seen  this   perinatologist  spend   hours                                                              
counseling  patients.   Furthermore, he  stated that  he [and  the                                                              
other perinatologist]  nor their  genetic counselors urge  a woman                                                              
to  choose an  abortion  as  that is  the  woman=s  decision.   He                                                              
informed  the committee  that many health  care practitioners  are                                                              
concerned   with  the  risk   of  wrongful   life  in   which  the                                                              
practitioners  are sued  by folks  who  say that  they would  have                                                              
never  had the  child  had they  known all  of  the problems  that                                                              
developed.  He noted  that in these cases, most of  the folks wind                                                              
up  continuing the  pregnancy anyway.    In regard  to the  30-day                                                              
domiciliary  provision, Dr. Isada  remarked that  he was  happy to                                                              
see that being deleted.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1164                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  reiterated his  earlier question  in regard  to Ms.                                                              
Schorr=s remark that this legislation  would require physicians to                                                              
provide false  and misleading information.   Again he  inquired as                                                              
to the area [in the bill] where such a charge would be relevant.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
DR. ISADA commented  that he and other health  care providers with                                                              
whom he  has discussed  this have  questioned who would  determine                                                              
what is objective  information that describes methods  of abortion                                                              
procedures.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CROFT  asked  if   the  clinical  definition   of                                                              
pregnancy is  usually a fertilized  egg or fertilized egg  that is                                                              
implanted  on the  uterine wall.   He  pointed out  that the  bill                                                              
defines pregnancy as   Athe second, if you will,  after meeting of                                                              
sperm  and egg.@    He  asked if  that  is the  standard  clinical                                                              
definition of pregnancy.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
DR. ISADA replied  that is correct.  However, he  said that he was                                                              
aware of several  ongoing lawsuits in which women  seeking another                                                              
procedure had a pregnancy test, which  was negative and thus these                                                              
women  proceeded  with the  procedure.    In further  response  to                                                              
Representative  Croft,  Dr.  Isada  specified  that  the  clinical                                                              
definition  of pregnancy  is the implantation  [of the  fertilized                                                              
egg on the uterine wall].                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT returned to the notion  that [this bill will require                                                              
physicians to provide] false or misleading  information.  Chairman                                                              
Kott referred to page 2, lines 26-29,  of the bill and inquired as                                                              
to  Dr. Isada=s  understanding  of  the language  Awhen  medically                                                              
accurate@.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
DR. ISADA  answered that he could  inform the committee  in regard                                                              
to what  he does,  although he  acknowledged the  many people  are                                                              
waiting to testify.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT  asked  if  Dr.   Isada  would  utilize  the  AMA=s                                                              
definition  or the perinatologist=s definition.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
DR.  ISADA  noted  that  there  are  many  differing  opinions  in                                                              
internal fetal  medicine/obstetrics.   In terms of  breast cancer,                                                              
that  is  controversial.    He informed  the  committee  that  his                                                              
standard   consultation   includes   the   risks   of   infection,                                                              
hemorrhage,  danger  to  subsequent   pregnancy,  infertility  and                                                              
possible  continued  pregnancy.    He  reiterated  that  continued                                                              
pregnancy  be  included   as  a  complication  because   it  is  a                                                              
recognized medical complication.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1379                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DR. JAN WHITEFIELD testified via  teleconference.  He acknowledged                                                              
the time constraints  facing the committee and said  that he would                                                              
limit  his  remarks  to  the  following  two  areas.    First,  he                                                              
addressed  the  definition  of  fertilization  in the  bill.    He                                                              
informed  the   committee  that   this  [definition]   can  become                                                              
problematic for  those that  perform routine medical  [procedures]                                                              
such as the insertion of IUDs (intrauterine  device), prescription                                                              
of   birth   control   pills   and   prescription   of   emergency                                                              
contraception.   He  explained that  under  the bill  if a  person                                                              
performs  an abortion  without the woman=s  informed consent,  the                                                              
physician can be held liable.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
DR.  WHITEFIELD  pointed out  that  both pro-choice  and  pro-life                                                              
people  consider  the  choice  to  have an  IUD  implanted  as  an                                                              
abortive facet  because a fertilized  egg may not implant  on [the                                                              
wall]  of the  uterus.   Therefore, this  definition of  pregnancy                                                              
when there is fertilization versus  implantation makes such things                                                              
as IUDs  an abortive  facet.  Furthermore,  the definition  raises                                                              
the question  as to what happens  when a person loses  a pregnancy                                                              
due  to  an  IUD  that  is  in  place  -  particularly  when  [the                                                              
physician]  has not  talked with  the patient  regarding the  fact                                                              
that [an  IUD] may  cause a pregnancy  not to  implant.   The same                                                              
would be true for emergency contraception.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
DR.  WHITEFIELD  explained that  if  a  physician gives  a  person                                                              
emergency contraception and the pregnancy  has not implanted, that                                                              
is  considered a  form  of abortion.   Therefore,  he  asked if  a                                                              
person  who  calls regarding  emergency  contraception  should  be                                                              
required to come into the physician=s  office and does this person                                                              
have to  fulfill the 24-hour  informed consent before  being given                                                              
the  emergency   contraception.    If   that  is  the   case,  the                                                              
effectiveness and  availability of the emergency  contraception is                                                              
lessened.  Therefore, that definition is problematic.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
DR. WHITEFIELD turned to the 24-hour  waiting period.  He was sure                                                              
that when  the numbers  are run, this  bill [would be  considered]                                                              
discriminatory  to  [Alaska] Natives.    He explained  that  those                                                              
coming in from  the Bush for an abortion will  incur extra expense                                                              
for the  time spent  waiting to undergo  informed consent  and the                                                              
24-hour waiting  period.  He informed  the committee that  by far,                                                              
the  largest group  of  people coming  in from  the  Bush to  have                                                              
abortions are Alaska Natives.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT   inquired  as  to  the  procedure   followed  when                                                              
scheduling an abortion.   He asked if the evaluation  is scheduled                                                              
first  or  is  the  procedure  performed  the  same  day  as  [the                                                              
evaluation].                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DR. WHITEFIELD explained  that if a person chooses  to come in for                                                              
a pregnancy  termination, she  would first  have an evaluation  to                                                              
determine whether  she is an  appropriate candidate  for pregnancy                                                              
termination.   The  person goes  through a  counseling process  to                                                              
determine whether  pregnancy termination is something  this person                                                              
wants and  other options  are presented to  the person.   Then the                                                              
person would go through the process  of informed consent.  When it                                                              
has been  determined that the  person is an appropriate  candidate                                                              
for pregnancy termination  and that she is choosing  [abortion] of                                                              
her own free  will - she has proceeded through  informed consent -                                                              
then   a  laminary (ph)  is inserted  on the  first day.   On  the                                                              
second day, the  termination is performed.  By  adding the 24-hour                                                              
waiting  period,  the person  will  come  in  and go  through  the                                                              
informed  consent and  be  provided the  literature.   The  person                                                              
would then be  allowed to leave and go through  the literature and                                                              
come back the next day to go through  ultrasounds, confirmation of                                                              
pregnancy and gestation and insertion  of laminary (ph).  Then the                                                              
person  would return  the third  day  for the  termination of  the                                                              
pregnancy.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1616                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if  there is any other procedure for                                                              
which a 24-hour waiting period is required.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DR. WHITEFIELD  replied no.   He  noted that he  sent a  letter to                                                              
each  of [the  committee  members].   Dr.  Whitefield stated  that                                                              
informed  consent is  a medical  process,  Ait=s not  legal.@   He                                                              
noted that the legislature, in trying  to define informed consent,                                                              
is taking on  an onerous task because this is  something that will                                                              
change  as  time  passes.   For  example,  the  risks  of  medical                                                              
abortion are very  different in 1999-2000 versus 1970.   The risks                                                              
change with time.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned  to the informed-consent process                                                              
outlined  by  Dr.  Whitefield.   She  surmised  that  the  process                                                              
includes  the   woman  signing   documentation  saying   that  she                                                              
understands the  procedure she is  about to undertake.   She asked                                                              
if anything in  the informed consent lists what  the physician has                                                              
described to the patient.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
DR. WHITEFIELD  answered that the informed consent  documents list                                                              
a  certain number  of things  such as  the risk  of infection  and                                                              
hemorrhage.   Such risks  are listed  because investigators  [seem                                                              
to] uniformly  agree  on those.   However, there  are other  risks                                                              
that are not specifically listed  such as the danger of subsequent                                                              
pregnancies.   Dr. Whitefield noted  that the Centers  for Disease                                                              
Control and Prevention  (CDC) has the largest  single databank for                                                              
abortion services  that have been  available since  abortions have                                                              
been available in the United States.   The CDC data bank says that                                                              
a person who  has one, two or three uncomplicated  first trimester                                                              
pregnancy  terminations,  faces  no increased  risk  with  getting                                                              
pregnant  in  the   future  or  carrying  a  pregnancy   to  term.                                                              
Therefore,  he said  he would  inform  a person  with no  previous                                                              
pregnancy  terminations or  previous pregnancies  that as  long as                                                              
there are  no complications  with this  pregnancy termination,  it                                                              
would not cause any danger to subsequent  pregnancies.  However, a                                                              
different approach  may be  taken for a  person coming in  for her                                                              
fifth pregnancy  termination in  that she would  be told  that CDC                                                              
data indicates  that this fifth  abortion may cause  difficulty in                                                              
regard to  getting pregnant  in the future  as well as  carrying a                                                              
pregnancy to  term.  Therefore,  the informed consent  is tailored                                                              
to the individual as the person has [an individual] history.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI related  her  understanding, then,  that                                                              
there is no standardized form.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
DR. WHITEFIELD  said there  is a  standardized form that  includes                                                              
items that are  expected to be risks no matter  how many pregnancy                                                              
terminations  one has  had, such  as the risk  of retained  tissue                                                              
requiring a repeat  D&C (dilation and curettage).   However, other                                                              
things may  be tailored  for the  individual and  thus may  not be                                                              
included  on the  form.   In  further response  to  Representative                                                              
Murkowski,  Dr. Whitefield  said he  would have  to talk with  his                                                              
administrative director and attorney  before faxing their informed                                                              
consent forms.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1872                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
IDA  BARNICK (ph),  Alaskans for  Life, stated  that Alaskans  for                                                              
Life supports [SSHB  329].  Alaskans for Life feel  that it is not                                                              
too much  to request a 24-hour  waiting period as this  deals with                                                              
ending the life of an unborn child.   Before the mother decides to                                                              
end the  life of her child,  she should have complete  information                                                              
in regard to  the age of the  unborn child, what the  unborn child                                                              
looks like, the risks of terminating  the pregnancy as well as the                                                              
[psychological] risks  to the mother  if she chooses  to terminate                                                              
the  pregnancy.    There  are many  women  who  have  ended  their                                                              
pregnancy  and   now  require  psychiatric   care  due   to  their                                                              
realization  that  they  ended  the  life of  their  child.    She                                                              
reiterated support for [SSHB 329].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1948                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MARY DYE  (ph) stated her support  of this legislation.   She said                                                              
if she  were a  woman in  this situation,  which would affect  her                                                              
life as well as another life, she  would want to take the extra 24                                                              
hours to think  it through.  In regard to  additional information,                                                              
she remarked that anytime she makes  a critical decision she would                                                              
want to  gather all  the information  she could.   She noted  that                                                              
surgery such  as terminating a  pregnancy is different  from other                                                              
surgeries  because there  are  two lives  involved.   Ms.  Dye(ph)                                                              
remarked that [physicians] stand  to profit from the procedure and                                                              
thus she would [also] like to receive  information from those that                                                              
do not stand to gain a profit.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2018                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SHERRIE  GOLL  testified  via teleconference  from  Haines.    She                                                              
testified in strong  opposition to [SSHB 329] and  urged that this                                                              
bill not  be forwarded  from the  committee.   Ms. Goll  felt that                                                              
this legislation  authorizes government  to infringe on  a woman=s                                                              
private decision in  regard to whether and when  to bear children.                                                              
Furthermore,  this  legislation  challenges  a  woman=s  right  to                                                              
control her own  body.  As previously mentioned,  the requirements                                                              
imposed [under  SSHB 329]  on the doctor  and the patient  are not                                                              
required for other  medical procedures.  She said  that the normal                                                              
informed  consent  laws are  adequate.    Ms.  Goll felt  that  as                                                              
elected officials, especially as  members of the [House] Judiciary                                                              
Committee,  they  have  the responsibility  to  uphold  the  state                                                              
constitution.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. GOLL  pointed out that the  legislation has problems  with the                                                              
definitions in  that Ait refers  to a fertilized egg as  an unborn                                                              
child rather  than using one  of the accepted terms:  >embryo= for                                                              
conception to the time that  a heartbeat is heard and >fetus= from                                                              
the time the heartbeat is heard  until viability.@  She emphasized                                                              
that fetuses must not be given (indisc.) in the state=s statute.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. GOLL turned  to the 24-hour waiting period  and echoed earlier                                                              
comments that this  waiting period is dangerous.   She also echoed                                                              
the information that  those states that have adopted  such onerous                                                              
waiting  periods  have  experienced  an increase  in  second  term                                                              
abortions.  For example, the State  of Mississippi has experienced                                                              
a 53 percent increase [in second  term abortions].  Therefore, the                                                              
danger to  a woman is  increased and  [the waiting period]  merely                                                              
prolongs a medical ordeal.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  GOLL  restated earlier  testimony  regarding  the  restricted                                                              
access to abortions  that Alaskan women face.   Many Alaskan women                                                              
must travel from their home to receive  such services.  Therefore,                                                              
this waiting  period not only  prolongs things, it  also increases                                                              
the costs.  She  reiterated that this legislation  is insulting to                                                              
women as  it seems to  imagine that a woman  will wake up  one day                                                              
and decide to do  this.  Women are reasonable human  beings as are                                                              
men; they should not be treated differently.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  GOLL  said  that the  24-hour  waiting  period  allows  anti-                                                              
abortion extremists to follow women  home from the clinic in order                                                              
to obtain  their addresses so that  they can be harassed  at home.                                                              
Ms. Goll stated, AI  feel this bill is an affront  to the women of                                                              
the state who  have and, ..., intend to maintain  every individual                                                              
woman=s right  to privacy  and freedom  from government  intrusion                                                              
regarding  personal  reproductive   decisions.@    The  government                                                              
doesn=t have a place  in this arena.  In regard to  those who have                                                              
spoken in  support of this bill,  Ms. Goll believed that  they had                                                              
every  right to  carry their  pregnancy  to term.   However,  they                                                              
shouldn=t   try   to  interfere   with   other   women=s   rights,                                                              
particularly  in the  law.   She  pointed out  that  a person  has                                                              
[control] over who  their doctor is, and if someone  does not like                                                              
her doctor=s advice, a new doctor can be obtained.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2198                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ROBIN  SMITH testified  next  via teleconference  from  Anchorage.                                                              
She requested that  the committee stop this bill  now.  She viewed                                                              
HB 329 as an attempt to shame and  intimidate women as it suggests                                                              
that  a woman  makes the  decision  to have  an abortion  lightly.                                                              
Furthermore,  this legislation  discourages women  from acting  in                                                              
the best interest of themselves and  their families.  She informed                                                              
the committee that Alaska has had  the highest rate of rape in the                                                              
nation for 16 of the past 20 years.   Therefore, it would be cruel                                                              
and insensitive  to require rape  victims to delay an  abortion or                                                              
to  require   these  women  to   view  18  photographs   of  fetal                                                              
development.   This [legislation] would  also be unfair  for those                                                              
women who  choose not to  report a rape,  for women  with severely                                                              
deformed  fetuses  or  women  whose lives  may  be  endangered  by                                                              
carrying a pregnancy to term.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. SMITH  continued.  She indicated  a woman must wait  until her                                                              
seventh  week  of  pregnancy  before   she  can  have  a  surgical                                                              
abortion,  which is ample  time for  a woman  to consult  with her                                                              
minister, family,  friends and  doctor.   Ms. Smith said,  AAlaska                                                              
needs to  prevent rape and  prevent unintended pregnancies  before                                                              
we   implement  such   Draconian   measures.@     She   identified                                                              
responsible sex  education in schools  and communities as  well as                                                              
expanded  access  to reproductive  health  care  as the  tools  to                                                              
reduce  abortion.    In  order  to  reduce  abortions,  unintended                                                              
pregnancies must be  stopped and thus the reasons  [for unintended                                                              
pregnancies]  must   be  addressed  not  the  consequences.     In                                                              
conclusion, Ms. Smith urged the committee  to stop [SSHB 329] now.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2282                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LEILA WISE, testifying  via teleconference from  Anchorage, stated                                                              
her opposition to  [SSHB 329] and urged the committee  not to pass                                                              
it out of  the committee.  The  decision to have an abortion  is a                                                              
personal and  private decision  that is best  left to a  woman and                                                              
the support she chooses.  Therefore,  she viewed the provisions of                                                              
this  bill  as   invasive,  tentative  and  based   on  inaccurate                                                              
information  about medical  practices and  terminology.   Ms. Wise                                                              
said  that  this   legislation  is  unconstitutional,   which  the                                                              
Department  of  Law  has  already   advised  [the  committee]  of.                                                              
Furthermore,  the   bill  is  inaccurate  as  it   uses  incorrect                                                              
definitions.  She  explained that abortion is  a medical procedure                                                              
and thus  it is  appropriate to  use only  medically accepted  and                                                              
accurate terminology.   She echoed earlier comments  regarding the                                                              
inappropriate use  of Aunborn child@  in this bill as well  as the                                                              
improper   definition  of   Aconception.@     Such  an   erroneous                                                              
definition  of   Aconception@  could   lead  to  the   banning  of                                                              
emergency  contraception as  well  as other  contraceptives.   She                                                              
hoped that the  intention is not to ban the  use of contraceptives                                                              
as  they are  the best  way  to reduce  the  number of  unintended                                                              
pregnancies and abortions.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2361                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WISE remarked  that this legislation is intrusive  because the                                                              
time many women  enter an abortion clinic, they  have already made                                                              
their decision and  consulted their family and  friends [and thus]                                                              
made an informed  decision.  Therefore, this  legislation attempts                                                              
to   interfere   with   a  woman=s   personal   decision   making.                                                              
Furthermore,  no  other  medical   procedure  requires  a  24-hour                                                              
waiting  period  for all  women  and exclusively  punishes  women.                                                              
Abortion, as does  any other medical procedure,  requires informed                                                              
consent  and the  information  is conveyed  by  the physician  and                                                              
his/her staff.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. WISE  asked if informed  consent would  [now] be  required for                                                              
pregnancy   and  would   it   include  information   on   prenatal                                                              
development, the  risk of maternal death and  complications, which                                                              
is greater than  the risk associated with abortion.   She informed                                                              
the committee that a woman near Homer  died a few weeks ago during                                                              
childbirth  and this  week the  Anchorage Daily  News included  an                                                            
obituary  of  a  woman  who died  along  with  her  unborn  child.                                                              
Fortunately,  such  situations are  few  due  to today=s  improved                                                              
health  care and  technology.   However, there  remains a  greater                                                              
risk of maternal death in pregnancy.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WISE returned  to the  issue  of the  inaccurateness of  this                                                              
bill.  For instance,  Dr. Coop (ph), a former  Surgeon General who                                                              
is pro-life, found  that abortion caused no  psychological effects                                                              
on women.   Furthermore,  there is  no evidence that  demonstrates                                                              
that    there  is any  relation  between  breast  cancer  and  the                                                              
instances of  abortion.  Therefore,  this bill is dangerous.   She                                                              
pointed out  that women  in Alaska  already face enormous  burdens                                                              
and challenges  even in  locating abortion  services.   Many women                                                              
must leave their  home to have a first trimester  procedure, which                                                              
creates a tremendous  financial burden.  Therefore,  imposition of                                                              
a 24-hour  waiting period  magnifies the  burden and allows  anti-                                                              
choice  extremist  to harass  women.    Ms.  Wise said  that  this                                                              
legislation dehumanizes, patronizes  and shames women.  Again, she                                                              
urged the  committee not  to pass  this bill  from committee.   In                                                              
conclusion,  Ms.  Wise  said,  AI  believe that  women  are  smart                                                              
enough,  responsible  enough, capable  enough  to  make their  own                                                              
choices and to take responsibility for them.@                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT  commented that  this  committee  has not  had  the                                                              
benefit of  hearing from  the Department of  Law in regard  to the                                                              
constitutionality of this legislation.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-54, SIDE B                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0015                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ANNE HARRISON  testified via teleconference  from Fairbanks.   She                                                              
remarked that  [SSHB 329]  is ill-conceived; she  opposed it  as a                                                              
woman, wife,  mother and women=s  health care nurse  practitioner.                                                              
In writing  this bill,  she said,  Representative Coghill  made an                                                              
assumption  that  medically  accurate   and  unbiased  information                                                              
regarding  pregnancies is  not already  being  provided by  health                                                              
care providers.   However, she  informed the committee  that since                                                              
the mid 70s, she and her nursing  colleagues and other health care                                                              
professionals  have  provided  sensitive  and  medically  accurate                                                              
information  in order  to assist  women in  making truly  informed                                                              
decisions  about their pregnancies.   She  said, AThis  counseling                                                              
is  standard,   time-consuming  and   is  based  on   professional                                                              
standards  of  practice.@    She turned  to  the  24-hour  waiting                                                              
period,  which she  believes to  be  logistically impractical  for                                                              
women due to the unavailability of  abortions in home communities.                                                              
If abortions were available in  Alaska=s major population centers,                                                              
as  they once  were,   the  24-hour  waiting period  [would]  just                                                              
happen by the way things are scheduled.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. HARRISON  asked  the committee  to listen  to the health  care                                                              
professionals,  who   have  based  their  testimony   on  clinical                                                              
experience  and  ongoing education.    She  viewed [SSHB  329]  as                                                              
unbalanced and  misinformed.  Furthermore, this  legislation would                                                              
promote  risks  of  one option  to  pregnancy,  abortion,  without                                                              
addressing  the risks involved  in childbirth  and adoption.   She                                                              
noted that childbirth,  parenting, abortion and  adoption all have                                                              
risks and  benefits.   In regard  to the charges  that there  is a                                                              
relation  between   breast  cancer  and  abortion,   Ms.  Harrison                                                              
informed the  committee that the  American Cancer Society  and the                                                              
National  Institute of  Health have  seen  no connections  between                                                              
breast  cancer and having  had an  abortion.   In conclusion,  Ms.                                                              
Harrison requested that the committee stop this bill now.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0113                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
EILEEN BECKER, Director, Homer Crisis  Pregnancy Center, testified                                                              
next via teleconference from Homer.   She noted that she had given                                                              
testimony  to  the  House  Health,  Education  &  Social  Services                                                              
Committee  in the  past  and she  hoped  that  testimony has  been                                                              
transmitted with  the bill.  She  informed the committee  that she                                                              
is very much  in favor of  this bill, partially because  she deals                                                              
with women in post-abortion counseling  and education.  She stated                                                              
that the  women she  deals with have  not been informed,  although                                                              
she   noted that she  does not know  this for sure.   Furthermore,                                                              
she felt that  even if these women  are told the basic  facts, the                                                              
state of  mind of  these woman doesn=t  allow them to  understand.                                                              
Therefore,  the 24-hour  waiting  period would  allow these  women                                                              
time to  consider what they are  doing and consider  the long-term                                                              
ramifications in order to make a better decision.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BECKER  continued.    She informed  the  committee  that  she                                                              
encourages women  that are determined  to have an abortion  to get                                                              
the  name of  the doctor  because  often that  information is  not                                                              
provided to these women.  If they  have complications later, these                                                              
women don=t  have a name  or a  person to return  to.   Ms. Becker                                                              
encouraged  the  committee  to obtain  copies  of  these  informed                                                              
consent [documents] and she indicated  the need to know the amount                                                              
of  time   that  is   taken  [to   provide]  all  this   important                                                              
information.  Although she said her  greatest challenge is to deal                                                              
with women after  [an abortion], it is her greatest  reward when a                                                              
women returns  nine months  later to  thank her  and show  her the                                                              
child.  Ms. Becker  said that although some of  the terminology in                                                              
this bill  needs to be  straightened out,  the bill, for  the most                                                              
part, is positive in its intent and direction.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI acknowledged  that  Ms. Becker  provides                                                              
counseling for  women who  have had abortions.   She asked  if Ms.                                                              
Becker also provides counseling for  women who give their children                                                              
up for adoption.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BECKER said  that there  have  been such  cases; however,  in                                                              
Alaska very  few people give their  children up for adoption.   In                                                              
the 14  years, on and  off, that she  has counseled at  the crisis                                                              
pregnancy center, she has only known of three adoptions.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0278                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
AMY  BOLLENBACH  testified via  teleconference  from  Homer.   Ms.                                                              
Bollenbach  acknowledged  that  some   of  these  women  who  have                                                              
abortions  may   have  regrets  afterwards.    She   informed  the                                                              
committee  of the  only  large scale,  long-term  study she  read,                                                              
which was  a Czechoslovakian  study.   This was  a study  that was                                                              
performed when  Czechoslovakia was  part of  the Soviet  Union and                                                              
although abortion was fairly easy  to obtain in Russia, there were                                                              
several  criteria  that  had to  be  met  in  order to  obtain  an                                                              
abortion in  Czechoslovakia.   This study was  in regard  to women                                                              
who wanted an abortion,  but were refused.  A woman  who wanted an                                                              
abortion  was  someone  who  requested  an abortion  of  the  same                                                              
pregnancy   three   different   times  and   had   been   refused.                                                              
Interestingly enough,  over time most of these  women could accept                                                              
that  they  had  a  baby  that  they  had  not  initially  wanted.                                                              
However, upon study of these children  through about age 30, these                                                              
children experienced  more psychiatric problems and  more of these                                                              
children  went to  jail than  children of  the same  socioeconomic                                                              
class.  In regard to [SSHB 329],   Ms. Bollenbach interpreted this                                                              
bill  as [attempting  to] prevent  women  from getting  abortions.                                                              
However,  she felt that  there are  enough problems  in Alaska  to                                                              
increase the number  of unwanted children.  She  remarked that Dr.                                                              
Whitefield=s testimony was excellent.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0371                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BARBARA CRAVER, Attorney,  noted that she is a  municipal attorney                                                              
for the City & Borough of Juneau.   She stated that she was not in                                                              
favor of  this bill.   She informed the  committee that  she would                                                              
address her  reasons, as  an attorney, in  regard to why  a person                                                              
that is Pro-Life  would think this is  not a good bill.   She felt                                                              
that Pro-Choice  [advocates], including  herself, would  view this                                                              
bill as another  obstacle.  However, she believed  that a Pro-Life                                                              
[advocate] could  still find  this bill objectionable,  especially                                                              
if the person is an attorney.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CRAVER  pointed  out  that this  bill  is  repetitive  as  AS                                                              
09.55.556 requires  informed consent for every  medical procedure,                                                              
which would include  abortions, and the statute  further says that                                                              
a physician  who fails to give  informed consent would  be liable.                                                              
This  bill  goes very  far  in  regard to  what  this  legislature                                                              
believes  informed consent  should  be in  the case  of a  special                                                              
medical  procedure, which  is unprecedented.   She didn=t  believe                                                              
anyone would disagree  that this is a large burden  on someone who                                                              
decides to go  through this medical procedure.  There  is no other                                                              
24-hour waiting  period on anyone;  moreover, informed  consent is                                                              
not defined elsewhere for any type of medical procedure.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CRAVER questioned  what problem  this bill  attempts to  fix.                                                              
She believes  that the  supporters of  this bill are  well-meaning                                                              
people.   She recalled  that Representative  Coghill said  that he                                                              
felt  that  many women  are  not  given  information and  that  he                                                              
supports the dignity  of women and of life.   Ms. Craver suggested                                                              
that  the best  way to  provide information  is through  education                                                              
such as sex education in the schools  and public information.  She                                                              
emphasized  that she  didn=t believe  there is  any evidence  that                                                              
this  is a  problem  in Alaska.    There doesn=t  seem  to be  any                                                              
evidence  beyond anecdotal  evidence, that  women occasionally  or                                                              
maybe  even frequently  regret  [having  an abortion].    However,                                                              
people regret many things in their  life and one moves on and does                                                              
the best he/she can.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. CRAVER said  she didn=t believe that there is  anything in the                                                              
current  law that  doesn=t  support  giving informed  consent  and                                                              
placing the physician  liable for giving a patient  fully informed                                                              
consent.   Furthermore, she didn=t  believe that  this legislation                                                              
supports  the dignity  of women but  rather singles  out women  as                                                              
people  who need  special help  making  a serious  decision.   Ms.                                                              
Carver  said, AI  think that  me and  my physician  can make  that                                                              
decision.  I think that those who  are Pro-Life can feel confident                                                              
that women do  not enter this lightly.@  Therefore,  she suggested                                                              
that even  for those who  are Pro-Life,  there are some  legal and                                                              
procedural   reasons   why  this   legislation   is   repetitious,                                                              
duplicative and  unfairly intrusive on women without  any evidence                                                              
of a problem.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0579                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JENNIFER  RUDINGER,  Executive Director,  Alaska  Civil  Liberties                                                              
Union (AkCLU),  testified via teleconference from  Anchorage.  She                                                              
asked  if the  committee  had received  a  copy  of her  four-page                                                              
position paper.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied yes.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RUDINGER  noted,  then,  that since  the  committee  has  her                                                              
written remarks  she would be brief.   She informed  the committee                                                              
that  the Department  of  Law testified  in  the Senate  Judiciary                                                              
Committee  last week  that this  legislation is  unconstitutional.                                                              
Ms. Rudinger  supported [the Department  of Law=s] position.   She                                                              
said  that it  is  the AkCLU=s  analysis that  the  Casey case  is                                                            
irrelevant.   The Planned Parenthood of Southeastern  Pennsylvania                                                            
v. Casey is a  1992 decision from the U.S. Supreme  Court that did                                                            
uphold a  24-hour waiting period  and informed consent  provision.                                                              
She pointed out:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     However, that  legal analysis is not relevant  in Alaska                                                                   
     court.   Alaska is one  of several states  that evaluate                                                                   
     restrictions on  women=s reproductive choices  under the                                                                   
     stricter standard of judicial  review established by the                                                                   
     U.S. Supreme Court  in Roe v. Wade in 1973.   Therefore,                                                                 
     the  Casey analysis  and  conclusion don=t  apply if  an                                                                 
     Alaska  court  is going  to  review HB  329.   It=s  our                                                                   
     opinion  that this  bill is  unconstitutional under  the                                                                   
     recent  Alaska Supreme  Court decision  in 1997,  Valley                                                                 
     Hospital Association v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  RUDINGER said  that beyond  the AkCLU=s  concerns that  [SSHB                                                              
329]  violates  the  Alaska State  Constitution,  there  are  many                                                              
reasons why  this legislation  is poor public  policy.   She noted                                                              
that many  of her  arguments in  her position  paper have  already                                                              
been eloquently articulated  by prior speakers and  thus she would                                                              
only focus  on one issue  that had  not been thoroughly  addressed                                                              
yet, which  is the biased  counseling requirements.   These biased                                                              
counseling  requirements  violate  standard medical  practice  and                                                              
invade the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER  continued.   As mentioned by  Ms. Craver,  she said,                                                              
this  bill requires  a doctor  to  supply all  the state  mandated                                                              
information to every  women in every instance in  order to be safe                                                              
and  avoid liability.   However,  the state  imposed Alitany@  may                                                              
conflict  with the doctor=s  ethical responsibility  to provide  a                                                              
patient  with the best  medical advice  for that  patient and  her                                                              
individual circumstances.   She remarked that it  is inconceivable                                                              
that  DHSS would  be  able to  develop a  pamphlet  that would  be                                                              
appropriate for  every type of  patient in various  circumstances.                                                              
Therefore, even  if a  doctor feels that  this information  is not                                                              
appropriate  for  a  particular   woman,  the  doctor  still  must                                                              
Athrust@  it upon  the woman  in order  to avoid  liability.   For                                                              
example, she felt  that everyone could agree that  it is pointless                                                              
and cruel to inform  a rape or incest victim that  the Afather@ is                                                              
financially liable if the woman carries the pregnancy to term.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  RUDINGER continued.   She  offered her  belief that  everyone                                                              
could agree it would also be cruel  to inform a woman with a fetus                                                              
with severe impairments  - such that it could  not survive outside                                                              
of the  womb - that the  Aunborn child@  would be 20 weeks  old at                                                              
the time  of the abortion.   Additionally, under  this legislation                                                              
doctors are forced  to provide nonmedical information  such as the                                                              
availability of child support; the  doctor may not be qualified to                                                              
speak about such information, and  furthermore it is irrelevant to                                                              
the doctor=s ethical  obligation to provide the  best medical care                                                              
[and] advice to a patient.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. RUDINGER  echoed earlier testimony  that the  American Medical                                                              
Association (AMA) had resolved to  oppose such measures.  She also                                                              
echoed  earlier comments  in regard  to  the medically  inaccurate                                                              
definitions included  in the bill.   She cited the  definitions of                                                              
Afertilization,@  Agestational   age@  and  Apregnancy@  as  being                                                              
medically  inaccurate,   which  Dr.   Isada  and  Dr.   Whitefield                                                              
attempted to  address.   Ms. Rudinger  said this [legislation]  is                                                              
not something  that should be codified  into law.   Alaska already                                                              
has regulations  and laws in place.   In conclusion,  Ms. Rudinger                                                              
strongly  urged the  committee not  to pass  the bill  as it  poor                                                              
public policy and unconstitutional.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0820                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
FRANCES  HALLGREN testified  next  via teleconference  from  Delta                                                              
Junction.  Ms. Hallgren remarked  that she is insulted by previous                                                              
testimony in  regard to [doctors]  knowing which facts  she should                                                              
hear and  which she should  not.  She noted  that she is  weary of                                                              
battling doctors that have their  own agendas or biases as well as                                                              
financial interest  in regard  to women  and their rights,  health                                                              
and intelligence.    Female doctors  as well as  male doctors  are                                                              
guilty  of  insulting  women  by providing  only  the  facts  that                                                              
support  their  idea  of  what  a  woman  should  do  in  a  tough                                                              
pregnancy.  Not all doctors are trustworthy.   She said that as an                                                              
intelligent woman, she wanted to  know all the facts [in order] to                                                              
make an  informed decision.   Furthermore,  she believes  that the                                                              
24-hour waiting period  is essential in order that  the person can                                                              
gather  all the  facts as  well as  process and  assess all  those                                                              
facts before making a decision.   She didn=t believe that [the 24-                                                              
hour waiting  period] is  an undue  burden as  this is a  decision                                                              
that will  affect the  rest of her  life mentally, physically  and                                                              
emotionally; that  has been proven  by many studies over  the last                                                              
few years.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. HALLGREN  related  her belief  that passage  of [SSHB 329]  is                                                              
essential to  protect women from  those doctors who  advance their                                                              
own views  on women.  She  charged that doctors are  making biased                                                              
decisions  [by providing  only the information  that they  believe                                                              
the woman can  handle].  Although doctors probably  mean well when                                                              
they provide  the facts  that they  believe to  be pertinent,  she                                                              
suggested that  the doctors could  provide a patient with  all the                                                              
facts and  still provide their counsel  and advice.   Ms. Hallgren                                                              
urged the passage of this bill.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
EMILY  JOSLIN testified  via teleconference  from Delta  Junction.                                                              
She indicated that Akilling babies@ is not right.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1013                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KAREN  VOSBURGH,   Executive  Director,  Alaska  Right   to  Life,                                                              
testified  via  teleconference  from   the  Mat-Su  Valley.    Ms.                                                              
Vosburgh stated that  this legislation is not  designed to prevent                                                              
abortions  but  rather inform  women  and  men by  providing  them                                                              
desperately  necessary  information.   In  any medical  situation,                                                              
save this situation [abortion], information  is provided about the                                                              
procedure.   However,  this situation  is probably the  most life-                                                              
changing situation that a woman and  man would find themselves in.                                                              
She stressed,  AInformation is not  a harmful thing.   Information                                                              
is a good  thing.@  She was  sure that everyone would  agree [that                                                              
providing information is a good practice].   In regard to the pro-                                                              
abortion  people  bringing up  rape,  Ms. Vosburgh  remarked  that                                                              
rape,  in relation  to abortion,  is a  very rare  instance as  it                                                              
accounts for about  5 percent of all abortions.   She informed the                                                              
committee that 95  percent of abortions are - Athey=re  like birth                                                              
control, I guess is a way to put it.@                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  VOSBURGH  recognized  that  doctors  and  nurses  are  a  bit                                                              
distressed in regard to the meaning  and definitions in this bill.                                                              
However, that can  be addressed.  She noted that  in the House HES                                                              
committee,  one of  the doctors  didn=t know  [the definition]  of                                                              
Afetus.@    The pro-abortion  people  used  Afetus@  as a  sterile                                                              
word;  however, Afetus@  is  a Latin  term  meaning "little  one."                                                              
She said, AAnd  that=s exactly what they are:   they are just very                                                              
small human beings.@   Ms. Vosburgh mentioned that  she personally                                                              
knew several  women who  have had abortions  and those  women were                                                              
not informed.  [The abortion] was  a devastating thing  from which                                                              
they are still  trying to recover.  Therefore,  she reiterated the                                                              
need for women to be informed in  regard to this crucial decision.                                                              
She remarked that  several doctors and nurses who  believe in this                                                              
legislation [won=t] be submitting written testimony.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. VOSBURGH then turned to the issue  of breast cancer, which she                                                              
stressed is  significant.  She  informed the committee  that there                                                              
is  a case  in South  Dakota regarding  breast cancer  information                                                              
that was  provided to  a woman  seeking an  abortion.  The  clinic                                                              
told this  woman that the  information was  not true and  that the                                                              
[breast cancer]  studies were  sloppy.   Although this  woman does                                                              
not have  breast cancer,  she brought  this lawsuit because  there                                                              
are significant findings in several studies.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  VOSBURGH  quoted a  Pro-Choice  doctor  as follows:  AI  have                                                              
three sisters with breast cancer  and I resent people messing with                                                              
the  scientific data  to further  their  own agenda  be they  Pro-                                                              
Choice  or  Pro-Life.    I  would have  loved  to  have  found  no                                                              
association between  breast cancer and abortion,  but our research                                                              
is rock  solid and  our data  is accurate.@   Ms. Vosburgh  stated                                                              
that  there  is a  strong  connection  between breast  cancer  and                                                              
abortion which  women need to know.   Furthermore, there  are over                                                              
100 potential  complications associated  with abortion  that women                                                              
should  be  aware  of.   Moreover,  the  psychological  damage  is                                                              
unbelievable.   Although  pro-abortion  people  say Ait=s  no  big                                                              
deal,@ she  informed the  committee  that to women  that have  had                                                              
abortions, it  is a big  deal and it does  change ones life.   The                                                              
least that can be done is to inform  these women in regard to what                                                              
can happen  to them physically and  psychologically as well  as to                                                              
inform them regarding the development of the baby.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN   KOTT  asked   if   anyone  else   in   Juneau  or   via                                                              
teleconference, besides  the Department of Law, who  would like to                                                              
testify.  There being no one, he  turned to the Department of Law.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1250                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KRISTEN  BOMENGEN,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Human  Services                                                              
Section, Civil  Division (Juneau), Department of  Law (DOL), noted                                                              
that the memorandum  in the committee packet was  prepared because                                                              
she was  unable to attend the  House Health, Education  and Social                                                              
Services  Standing   Committee  [meeting].    She   recalled  that                                                              
Representative  Coghill  had  indicated  the  committee  might  be                                                              
hearing a challenge  to this bill from DOL.   However, she pointed                                                              
out  that when  DOL  appears  before legislative  committees,  the                                                              
department    is     generally    present    to     inform    [the                                                              
committees/legislators].   The department  has to bring  attention                                                              
to  any  of   the  legal  infirmities  and,  in   particular,  any                                                              
constitutional  difficulties that  may be  created by  a piece  of                                                              
legislation.   Therefore,  Ms. Bomengen  said it  is in that  role                                                              
that she appears before the committee today.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOMENGEN  turned to  the bill before  the committee  and noted                                                              
that the most  important focus of this bill is  the constitutional                                                              
infirmities that  DOL sees.   There has  been testimony  that this                                                              
bill is  constitutional under  Planned Parenthood  v. Casey.   She                                                            
said:                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     However,  the   Alaska  Supreme  Court  in   the  Valley                                                                 
     Hospital  v. Mat-Su Coalition  case explicitly  rejected                                                                 
     the test  of Planned Parenthood  v. Casey, which  simply                                                                 
     requires the  state to, in  its placing restrictions  on                                                                   
     abortion  availability, to not  impose an undue  burden.                                                                   
     In  [the] Valley  Hospital  case, the  [Alaska  Supreme]                                                                 
     Court  instead  adopted  the  Roe v.  Wade  test,  which                                                                 
     determines  that abortion  is a  fundamental right  that                                                                   
     can be legally  constrained only when  those constraints                                                                   
     are justified by a compelling  state interest not simply                                                                   
     a legitimate  interest or  even a substantial  interest,                                                                   
     but  a  compelling  state  interest  and  that  no  less                                                                   
     restrictive means could advance this interest.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOMENGEN  recognized that  there are a  number of  states that                                                              
have  imposed restrictions  [such  as those  contemplated in  SSHB                                                              
329] and  they have  withstood some  challenges under those  state                                                              
constitutions.   However, when  the case  comes before  the Alaska                                                              
Supreme  Court, one  can  be fairly  certain  that  many of  these                                                              
restrictions would  not be found  constitutional under the  Roe v.                                                            
Wade test, in particular the 24-hour waiting period.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1430                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BOMENGEN  informed  the  committee   that  by  creating  this                                                              
legislation, there  will inevitably  be a cost  to the state.   In                                                              
general, DOL does not submit a fiscal  note when it would be based                                                              
upon the speculation  of a lawsuit being brought.   However, it is                                                              
very  likely  that  a constitutional  challenge  will  be  leveled                                                              
against  this legislation  and thus  there will  be a  cost.   The                                                              
department conservatively estimates  that the cost would be in the                                                              
range of $50,000 and if the suit  were lost, that amount would, at                                                              
a minimum, be doubled.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.   BOMENGEN  turned   to  Section   1,   which  contains   some                                                              
inaccuracies of fact that the department  [DHSS] would be required                                                              
to place in the  pamphlet.  She also said that  she would focus on                                                              
the  inaccuracies of  the  definitions.   She  noted,  AI=m not  a                                                              
medical person  so I don=t have  all of the information,  but what                                                              
the most  accurate medical  definitions would  be.@  However,  the                                                              
current  definitions  of  Afertilization@   and  Aconception@  are                                                              
confusing and there  is no reference to implantation.   Therefore,                                                              
this  legislation would,  at a  minimum, create  confusion in  the                                                              
administration of other statutes  related to abortion rights.  She                                                              
directed  the committee  to  the definition  of  Aabortion@ in  AS                                                              
18.16.090.   In the case of  emergency contraception [and]  IUDs a                                                              
great deal of  confusion would be created in how  these laws would                                                              
be  administered.    Physicians   would  be  left  in  a  quandary                                                              
regarding their obligations under the law.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BOMENGEN  continued  by  addressing  the  problem  that  [the                                                              
definitions] raise under Section  3, which imposes civil liability                                                              
for compensatory and  punitive damages - that  can be considerable                                                              
- for  not  providing specific  information.   She echoed  earlier                                                              
comments  that   this  would  have   a  chilling  effect   on  the                                                              
availability of  abortions in certain  jurisdictions in  which the                                                              
providers  were  uncertain  of  the  law.    Therefore,  it  would                                                              
probably   have  a  chilling   effect  on   the  availability   of                                                              
practitioners willing  to risk their  medical practice  to provide                                                              
[abortion services].                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1638                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT pointed  out  that Section  3  refers to  AA                                                              
person who performs  or induces ...@.  He stated  that if a doctor                                                              
is incorrect in  his/her estimate of Awhen  medically accurate@ on                                                              
page 4, line 20,  or Awhere appropriate@ on page  4, line 23, then                                                              
the doctor would  have committed what would seem to  be close to a                                                              
strict liability crime under Section 3.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOMENGEN  agreed  that is a  risk with  the current  language.                                                              
She pointed  out that  Aknowingly@  only appears  on page  4, line                                                              
11,  as a  lead  in to  the  requirements of  [AS]  .060.   Again,                                                              
physicians are put in a quandary  regarding what is known and what                                                              
can be known when there is so much  disagreement regarding what is                                                              
medically  accurate.     She   predicted  that  a   constitutional                                                              
challenge on that basis would probably be lost.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1742                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOMENGEN turned  to [Section] 2 and noted that  there has been                                                              
some confusion  regarding what [Section]  2 achieves.  All  of the                                                              
provisions of AS 18.16.010 are fully  set out with the addition of                                                              
paragraph  (5) at the  bottom of  page 3,  which is the  provision                                                              
that  really imposes  the 24-hour  waiting period  and the  signed                                                              
informed consent requirements.  As  pointed out in her letter, Ms.                                                              
Bomengen felt that it could be appropriate  to revisit [Section 2,                                                              
paragraphs]  (2)   and  (4)  as   there  are  problems   with  the                                                              
constitutionality  of those two.   [Section  2, paragraph]  (3) is                                                              
presently under  challenge and [paragraph]  (1) may or may  not be                                                              
[challenged]  and she  didn=t believe  there is  an opinion  as to                                                              
whether that  is constitutional.   Therefore, if  these provisions                                                              
are going to  be set out again,  it may be appropriate  to address                                                              
those    issues  that  the legislature  and  the  state  has  been                                                              
informed   about   regarding  the   constitutionality   of   those                                                              
provisions.  In  regard to Section 3 of the bill,  she pointed out                                                              
that  physicians   are  already  subject  to  liability   for  any                                                              
negligence.  Furthermore, physicians  do inform and obtain consent                                                              
[in order] to meet the requirements of sound medical practice.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1878                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOMENGEN  moved on to  Section 4 and  noted that there  is one                                                              
concern which  was not  mentioned in the  letter.  Alaska  Statute                                                              
18.16.060(b)  lists a  number of  items  that must  be met  before                                                              
someone can sign the informed consent.   Section 4, paragraph (3),                                                              
which requires  the woman to  be given a  copy of the  pamphlet as                                                              
described in  the bill,  poses a  problem in the  case of  a woman                                                              
that  doesn=t wish  to  be given  the  pamphlet.   Therefore,  she                                                              
suggested that  it may  be more appropriate  to make  the pamphlet                                                              
available to  the woman versus thrusting  it into her hands.   Ms.                                                              
Bomengen  cited  another  concern  with  Section  4  in  that  the                                                              
emergency provisions  do not  make any  explicit reference  to the                                                              
psychological  health of  the  woman.   Inclusion  of a  provision                                                              
regarding  the psychological  health of  the woman  would be  more                                                              
constitutionally sound.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT directed Ms.  Bomengen to page 4, lines 9-13.                                                              
He asked if  Ms. Bomengen read Section  4(a) to mean that  if this                                                              
is complied  with, one may,  in the case  of a medical  emergency,                                                              
perform [an abortion].   Although it seems to be  in the negative,                                                              
it would  cause problems either  way.  He  inquired as to  how Ms.                                                              
Bomengen  read  that  section;  does   one  have  to  comply  with                                                              
subsection (b)  in a medical emergency.   He asked if the  bill is                                                              
silent  in regard  to a  medical emergency  as the  bill does  not                                                              
refer to Ain the case of a medical emergency, you shall@.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOMENGEN  agreed that  the bill does  not say that.   However,                                                              
the language  AExcept  in case  of a  medical emergency@ would  be                                                              
useful  in  [supporting]  that  these   provisions  would  not  be                                                              
required.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT agreed and  asked if there  is any  place in                                                              
the  bill  which specifies  what  has  to  be  done in  a  medical                                                              
emergency.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BOMENGEN  answered that  she  didn=t  believe that  there  is                                                              
anything [in the bill] that clarifies that.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2161                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  related  her  understanding  that  under                                                              
Alaska=s  constitution, Alaska  has  broader  rights and  Alaska=s                                                              
court has  chosen to follow  an earlier  decision, Roe v.  Wade in                                                            
regard to determinations about abortion.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOMENGEN agreed with Representative  Kerttula=s understanding.                                                              
She  informed   the  committee  that  when  the   legislature  was                                                              
considering a number  of abortion-related bills in  1997, that was                                                              
prior  to the  Valley  Hospital  decision.   The  Valley  Hospital                                                          
decision clarified  which test would be applied  to the restraints                                                              
placed on abortion  rights in the  State of Alaska.  It  was noted                                                              
[in  the   Valley  Hospital  decision]   that  the   Alaska  State                                                            
Constitution, Article I, Section 22, provided that.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2253                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  came  forward  to  provide  some  closing                                                              
remarks.  He thanked the committee  for hearing the bill and noted                                                              
that he is not  a constitutional lawyer.  He  maintained that what                                                              
the committee heard [from the Department  of Law] was a challenge.                                                              
Furthermore, he felt  that some of the Supreme Court  cases at the                                                              
national  level would  challenge  some of  Alaska=s Supreme  Court                                                              
rulings and he would be willing to assert some of that.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that  this bill is about getting the                                                              
best information for a woman who  is legally able to consent to an                                                              
abortion.  He said  that he had no problem with  that and affirmed                                                              
that he is Pro-Life.   This is a national debate  and thus he felt                                                              
that  elevating  this issue  to  this degree  is  not  wrong.   He                                                              
remarked that the  reason some charge that the  information [being                                                              
given to these women] is biased is  because those folks are on the                                                              
other side of the  issue.  He informed the committee  that [in the                                                              
pamphlet] he would  include the gestational age of  the baby as it                                                              
is the very  reason Awe@ have  the preamble to the  [Alaska State]                                                              
Constitution, which he read as follows:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     We the  people of Alaska, grateful  to God and  to those                                                                   
     who pioneered  this great land,  in order to  secure and                                                                   
     transmit  to  succeeding  generations  our  heritage  of                                                                   
     political,  civil,  and  religious  liberty  within  the                                                                   
     Union  of   States,  do  ordain  and     establish  this                                                                   
     constitution for the State of Alaska.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Furthermore,  Article  I says  that  people have  Athe  principles                                                              
that all  persons have a  natural right  to life@.   Therefore, he                                                              
felt that  the state does have  a compelling interest to  show the                                                              
life in the  gestational period.   He acknowledged that  this is a                                                              
debate that will rage nationally  as well as locally.  However, he                                                              
indicated that this debate should  occur here [in the legislature]                                                              
as it is the  branch of government in which the  people have their                                                              
say. [A  small portion  of Representative  Coghill=s remarks  were                                                              
not recorded due to a tape change.]                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-55, SIDE A                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  reiterated the need for women  to have the                                                              
best medical  information possible.   Although he  recognized that                                                              
everyone is  not going to  agree on this  issue, he  stressed that                                                              
providing information  to women facing this choice  is not against                                                              
women.   He affirmed that  he is asking that  life be valued.   He                                                              
charged that  if eagle  eggs were  being smashed, [society]  would                                                              
find out how  much the progeny of  eagles is valued and  thus they                                                              
would be protected.  He stated that  this is not necessarily about                                                              
protecting  the baby,  although he  would  purport to  do so,  but                                                              
rather getting at the information.   On that point, he agreed that                                                              
education is an answer.  From the  home to school to adulthood, it                                                              
should be  taught how to properly  produce or not produce,  if one                                                              
so chooses  because  once there is  the production,  there  is the                                                              
responsibility.   This  [legislation]  provides information  about                                                              
that responsibility.   In  regard to whether  this is  targeted at                                                              
women, Representative  Coghill  said yes  because only one  gender                                                              
produces.  In conclusion, Representative  Coghill thanked everyone                                                              
who testified.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0204                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT asked  if  there were  questions  for the  sponsor.                                                              
There being none, he closed the public  debate.  He noted that the                                                              
committee  had only,  in the  last  hour-and-a-half, received  the                                                              
comments  of the Department  of Law  regarding the  constitutional                                                              
issues.    Therefore,  he  believed it  prudent  to  review  these                                                              
issues.  Chairman Kott announced that [SSHB 329] would be held.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HB 164 - FISH & GAME LICENSING BY ELECTRONICS                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0362                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
HOUSE BILL  NO. 164,  "An Act relating  to electronic  application                                                              
for and  issuance of  licenses, permits,  and  tags issued  by the                                                              
Department of  Fish and Game;  to violations regarding  a license,                                                              
permit,  or  tag   applied  for  or  issued   electronically;  and                                                              
providing for an effective date."   [The bill was sponsored by the                                                              
House Rules  Committee  by request  of the Governor.   Before  the                                                              
committee was CSHB 164(RES).]                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0429                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN  BROOKS,  Director,  Division  of  Administrative  Services,                                                              
Alaska Department of Fish & Game  (ADF&G), came forward to explain                                                              
the need for  the legislation.  Noting that administration  of the                                                              
licensing  program  falls under  his  purview,  he said  ADF&G  is                                                              
undertaking  an  ongoing  effort   to  modernize,  streamline  and                                                              
enhance  customer  service in  the  licensing program.    Although                                                              
ADF&G  has   instituted  an   Internet  application   process  for                                                              
individuals  to apply for  hunting or  fishing licenses,  it still                                                              
involves paper.   Now ADF&G hopes  to provide, in statute,  for an                                                              
opportunity  to issue a  license electronically.   That  follows a                                                              
natural  progression of  what  the department  has  done with  the                                                              
Internet   application    and   some   1-800    telephone   number                                                              
applications,  as  well  as other  attempts  to  enhance  customer                                                              
service.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BROOKS informed  the  committee that  ADF&G  is working  with                                                              
other states  to determine  the best practices.   Some  states use                                                              
their lottery systems, while others  use a so-called smart number.                                                              
There  are  any  number  of  ways  to  approach  the  issuance  of                                                              
licenses.   In any case,  ADF&G wants  to keep up with  technology                                                              
and make it easy for both residents  and nonresidents to apply for                                                              
and receive licenses.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0558                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BROOKS explained  the current  Internet application  process.                                                              
An individual goes online to order  a license - hunting or fishing                                                              
tags  - and pays  with a  credit card;  within a  couple of  days,                                                              
ADF&G  sends  that license  to  the  applicant.   Eventually,  the                                                              
department wants to  be able to let someone "hit  the field" right                                                              
away, which  might entail a  smart number or identification  card.                                                              
He pointed out  that ADF&G is trying to determine  what would work                                                              
best in  Alaska, including working  with the Department  of Public                                                              
Safety (DPS) and the Department of  Law to ensure that enforcement                                                              
or prosecution efforts by those departments  aren't compromised by                                                              
whatever  ADF&G does  with licensing.   The  bill addresses  those                                                              
concerns so that  ADF&G has a consensus with DPS  on anything they                                                              
might do.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0617                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT asked whether  the department  issues any  licenses                                                              
over the Internet using a secure means.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS  indicated that ultimately  the whole process  might be                                                              
paperless.  The  application process on the Internet  is paperless                                                              
now,  but still  involves the  department  to mail  out a  license                                                              
afterwards;  that system  was brought  up on  the Internet  around                                                              
November 1.  A person who signs on  to ADF&G's website can go into                                                              
that  application, and  punch in  the  credit card  number.   That                                                              
system has  sold a couple of  thousand of those  licenses already,                                                              
and they expect that to take off  with the season approaching.  In                                                              
addition, they are  looking at McNeil River permits,  proxy hunts,                                                              
personal use permits,  and [drawings for hunts]  that the Division                                                              
[of  Wildlife   Conservation]  implements,   for  example.     The                                                              
department views those as opportunities  to reach out to customers                                                              
and make it easier  for them to get licenses so  that they can hit                                                              
the field and enjoy the resources.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT  asked whether  ADF&G  notifies  a person  who  has                                                              
applied over the Internet that the  application has been received.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS  answered that  ADF&G's system works  much in  the same                                                              
way  as  it would  if  signing  on  to  any other  entity  on  the                                                              
Internet; there  is a confirmation  online with a code,  and ADF&G                                                              
will ship out a license within 48  hours.  It is working fine, and                                                              
that is  how he  bought his  own license  for the  year 2000.   He                                                              
noted that  people have  been "hitting" the  site from  Europe and                                                              
the Lower 48.  That piece is in place and working quite well.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0758                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the bill sets  out that the license will be                                                              
sent out in 48 hours.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS pointed out that HB 164  does not address the issuance.                                                              
He  reiterated that  the department  is  already able  to do  that                                                              
under current  statute.   The policy has  been to turn  around the                                                              
issuance of the license within 48  hours in order to ensure that a                                                              
person in  the Lower 48  has the license  in his/her  hands before                                                              
leaving for  their trip.   He posed  a situation  under HB  164 in                                                              
which someone  from the Lower 48,  who had not obtained  a license                                                              
before coming in to Alaska, would  be able to purchase the license                                                              
via  the Internet  and receive  a confirmation  number that  would                                                              
allow the person  to hunt or fish  without having to wait  for the                                                              
paper license.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the confirmation  number would be what such                                                              
an individual would need to show an officer in the field.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BROOKS explained  that  the "smart  number"  would be  easily                                                              
identifiable by  an enforcement officer.   The bill  would require                                                              
that those purchasing their license  in this manner would agree to                                                              
carry a picture identification.   Therefore, it would enhance what                                                              
[the Department of]  Public Safety currently has  because only the                                                              
license is currently required.  He  informed the committee that in                                                              
some states  the first  four or so  digits are randomly  generated                                                              
and  then others  would  be encoded  to  indicate gender,  weight,                                                              
height  and  hair  color.    Therefore,   the  number  with  photo                                                              
identification  would allow  one to  determine whether  it is  the                                                              
appropriate individual.   Furthermore,  the number would  indicate                                                              
the  type of  license.   This  type  of number  has  been used  in                                                              
Georgia and other states.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0960                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI  inquired  as  to  how  an  individual's                                                              
residency would be verified.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS noted that the smart number  is one concept of how this                                                              
could work.  With  a smart number, one of the  items that would be                                                              
encoded  in  the number  would  be  whether  the individual  is  a                                                              
resident or a nonresident.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI posed a  situation in which an individual                                                              
from Oklahoma  applies for  a license over  the Internet  and says                                                              
that he/she  is an Alaskan resident.   She inquired as  to how the                                                              
department  would  confirm  this  individual  is  not  an  Alaskan                                                              
resident and would be required to pay the out-of-state fees.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS informed  the committee that such has  been encountered                                                              
with the  current Internet application.   Therefore,  the Internet                                                              
license  includes the  same affirmation  that is  included on  the                                                              
paper license.   He pointed out that  there is no greater  risk of                                                              
this  over  the  Internet  than  already  would  exist  for  paper                                                              
applicants.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI pointed  out that  when she obtains  her                                                              
fishing license  every year, she  has to show her  Alaska driver's                                                              
license.  She  stressed her understanding that in  order to obtain                                                              
a  license  [at the  Alaskan  residency  rate],  one has  to  show                                                              
Alaskan identification.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS clarified  that photo identification  is not absolutely                                                              
required, although [an Alaskan driver's license] is often used.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI  asked if the application  says, "I swear                                                              
or affirm  that everything  that I've said  is true and  that this                                                              
may be subject to a penalty if I'm lying."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BROOKS agreed  that  "in  so many  words"  that  is what  the                                                              
application   says.    In   further  response  to   Representative                                                              
Murkowski,  Mr.  Brooks  affirmed  that there  are  penalties  for                                                              
fraud.   He  noted that  [the department]  has  been working  very                                                              
closely  with the Department  of  Law and the  Division of  Public                                                              
Safety  in  order  to  ensure  that   nothing  is  being  done  to                                                              
compromise their efforts.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1149                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI  commented that she hated to  make it too                                                              
easy  for someone  [to  receive  the  Alaska rate  through  fraud]                                                              
without any verification.  She recognized  that the current system                                                              
is not foolproof either.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BROOKS remarked  that  the same  discussions  have been  held                                                              
internally [in  the department].   There will always be  those who                                                              
will try  to "get  over" and  cheat [the  system].  He  questioned                                                              
whether making  this easier for  the general population,  that are                                                              
honest,  would encourage  others  to be  criminals  who would  not                                                              
otherwise be.   He indicated that what was determined  [from those                                                              
internal  discussions]  was  that    simplifying  the  application                                                              
process  would  not  necessarily  make  criminals  out  of  honest                                                              
people.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   MURKOWSKI  mentioned   reviewing  the   penalties                                                              
associated with lying on an application and strengthening those.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  inquired as  to how  lost licenses or  confirmation                                                              
numbers would be handled.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BROOKS answered  that currently  an individual  can obtain  a                                                              
duplicate.   In regard to a  lost confirmation number,  that could                                                              
be called  in and  confirmed over  the phone  in order to  provide                                                              
that lost  number.   This could be  done after providing  adequate                                                              
information so  that the department  knew who the  individual was.                                                              
He  likened the  process to  that of  calling in  for credit  card                                                              
information  in   which  the  company  requests   information  for                                                              
verification that the individual  speaking is who he/she claims to                                                              
be.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BROOKS returned  to Representative  Murkowski's comments  and                                                              
noted that  perhaps, the  example of the  person coming  to Alaska                                                              
for a  short fishing trip  is not the best.   The person  who will                                                              
really  be offended  by the  nonresident  fees would  be a  person                                                              
purchasing an annual license.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1321                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT understood,  then, that an individual  would have to                                                              
have in his/her possession, some form of identification.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS  explained that if  an individual, with  a confirmation                                                              
number,   is  out   in   the  field   he/she   must  carry   photo                                                              
identification,   which   is   more   than   under   the   current                                                              
requirements.   He noted that this  electronic system is  meant to                                                              
compliment the current paper system not replace it.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT  surmised, then,  that  [the requirement  to  carry                                                              
photo  identification] would  address  the problem  of an  out-of-                                                              
state  resident that  may  want to  defraud  the  State of  Alaska                                                              
because the person  would have to present photo  identification, a                                                              
license from the State of Alaska.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned [the  possibility of folks claiming                                                              
to  be]  senior citizens  [in  order  to  pay the  reduced  senior                                                              
citizen fee] of $5 for a license.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT inquired  as to how  Canadians  from the Yukon  are                                                              
handled.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.   BROOKS  pointed   out  that   this   licensing  program   is                                                              
administered  through a  network of  1,500 vendors  "and so  we're                                                              
going to go to all our Haines vendors  and say, 'Oh, by the way if                                                              
you get someone  from the Yukon,  with this zip code  or whatever,                                                              
sell them  a resident  license.'"  He  acknowledged that  would be                                                              
problematic.  However, if that passes,  [the department] will poll                                                              
its database  and send  out a letter  saying that the  legislature                                                              
has  allowed Yukon  residents to  be  treated as  Alaskans.   This                                                              
would be sent  to those who have  purchased a license in  the past                                                              
and the individual  would be notified of the ability  to apply via                                                              
the Internet, which  would not place a burden on  the vendors.  He                                                              
commented that [the  department] would not initiate  it, but could                                                              
do it.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1460                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT asked  what  the net  cost would  be  of using  the                                                              
Internet to purchase the license via VISA.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS  explained that  what is contemplated  under HB  164 is                                                              
that  there  be a  compensation  system  that  pays the  vendor  5                                                              
percent of the gross sales plus $1  per item sold.  Therefore, for                                                              
a $25 license it  would amount to $2.25.  He pointed  out that the                                                              
bill limits the  compensation for an electronic  vendor by capping                                                              
the amount  at the lesser of  the existing compensation  or $3.00.                                                              
Therefore,  Mr.  Brooks  envisioned   this  to  occur  within  the                                                              
confines of the existing compensation package for the vendor.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  suggested having this  available at a kiosk  in the                                                              
Anchorage International Airport.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS  commented,  "Just wait."   He also  commented that  in                                                              
order to have a kiosk in the Anchorage  International Airport, the                                                              
license process  would almost  have to  be paperless.   Otherwise,                                                              
someone would  have to be  present to  issue the license  or tags.                                                              
He  reiterated  that this  [Internet  application]  is  seen as  a                                                              
compliment to  the existing  system.  He  noted that with  a kiosk                                                              
system, the  kiosk could be placed  in some of the  larger stores,                                                              
which he  indicated would be mutually  beneficial as the  store is                                                              
really   interested  in   outfitting  the   individual  and   [the                                                              
department] is interested in obtaining  a database and issuing the                                                              
license.    Mr. Brooks  pointed  out  that  this system  would  be                                                              
helpful to  the extent that  individuals themselves can  enter the                                                              
data and there can be a real time updated database.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI inquired  as to  what would happen  with                                                              
the king  salmon tags as  the proposed  system would not  have the                                                              
capability.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. BROOKS  acknowledged that  this is one  of the obstacles.   He                                                              
remarked that in  some cases the back of the license  is used as a                                                              
harvest record.   He noted  that big  game tags also  pose another                                                              
challenge.  Therefore,  [the department] will be  required to work                                                              
with Public Safety  in order to avoid a situation  in which Public                                                              
Safety is compromised.   In regard to the king  salmon stamp, that                                                              
is a revenue generator.  The thinking  is that a number could also                                                              
be assigned  to the king salmon  stamp.  However, the  duck stamps                                                              
and the waterfowl stamps have an  art aspect and thus it will take                                                              
some work to iron  these things out.  Still, the  statutes need to                                                              
be  in place  to move  forward  on this  and  eliminate the  paper                                                              
requirement.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  called an at-ease  at 5:03 p.m. and  reconvened the                                                              
meeting  in less  than  a minute.    He noted  that  there was  no                                                              
additional testimony.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1734                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI moved  to  report CSHB  164(RES) out  of                                                              
committee  with individual  recommendations  and the  accompanying                                                              
zero fiscal  notes.  There being  no objection, it was  so ordered                                                              
and CSHB 164(RES)  was reported from the House  Judiciary Standing                                                              
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT recessed  the House Judiciary Standing  Committee to                                                              
the call of the chair at 5:05 p.m.   The committee was called back                                                              
to order  at 7:42 p.m., at  which time the following  members were                                                              
present:    Representatives  Kott,   James,  Rokeberg,  Murkowski,                                                              
Kerttula and Croft.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SB  24-REGULATIONS: ADOPTION & JUDICIAL REVIEW                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
CS  FOR  SENATE   BILL  NO.  24(FIN)  am,  "An   Act  relating  to                                                              
regulations; amending  Rule 65, Alaska  Rules of  Civil Procedure;                                                              
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  moved  to   adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                              
substitute  (CS),  version  LS0274\L, Bannister,  4/7/00,  as  the                                                              
working document before the committee.   There being no objection,                                                              
it was so ordered and Version L was before the committee.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1822                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DAVE  DONLEY, Alaska State  Legislature, testified  as the                                                              
sponsor of  SB 24.   He explained that  version L streamlines  the                                                              
notification process  to take into  consideration the  advances of                                                              
the  Internet  and  allow  abbreviated  public  notices  with  the                                                              
maximum  information   available  to  the  public   through  other                                                              
technologies.   He noted  that Sections 1-4  were in  the original                                                              
bill and  haven't been  changed.  He  informed the committee  that                                                              
the only changes encompassed in version  L is the deletion of what                                                              
were  Sections   3-5  and  any   references  to   those  sections.                                                              
Therefore, the  references to standards, burdens  and cost benefit                                                              
are not included  in version L.  What is left  is the supplemental                                                              
motives provisions, which have been significantly streamlined.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  pointed out that  it is a five-year  pilot program                                                              
that would apply  to the Department of Environmental  Conservation                                                              
(DEC).   He clarified  that the  department would  be required  to                                                              
notify  the  public  when  the  department  intends  to  adopt  or                                                              
substantially  change  a  regulation.   Additionally,  this  pilot                                                              
program  establishes a  two-year window  in which agencies  should                                                              
adopt regulations.  He noted that  currently there is no guideline                                                              
for that.  There would also be a  90-day window to specify whether                                                              
they intend  to adopt regulations.   If for some reason  they fail                                                              
to adopt regulations within the two  years, a report must be filed                                                              
explaining  why the  regulations couldn't  be adopted  in the  two                                                              
years.  Senator  Donley specified that  the intent is not  to stop                                                              
the adoption of  regulations, but rather to encourage  adoption of                                                              
regulations in a timely manner.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as  to how this deals with the state                                                              
agencies when they don't want to do it.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY stated that this will  be the first time that there                                                              
is a fixed guideline of two years  to [adopt regulations].  If the                                                              
intent is  to encourage  state agencies  to complete the  process,                                                              
the penalty is  the problem in that penalties,  in general, negate                                                              
what has  been performed.  Therefore,  all that is  requested when                                                              
the  process  is   not  completed  in  two  years   is  a  written                                                              
explanation as  to why.   Senator Donley  related his  belief that                                                              
the Department of Law takes these guidelines seriously.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  referred to Section  5, which speaks  to the                                                              
proposed  adoption amendment  or  repeal published  in the  Alaska                                                              
Administrative  Journal.   She  recalled that  [legislation]  went                                                              
through that said that was not going  to occur anymore.  She asked                                                              
if  it  is   going  to  still   be  referred  to  as   the  Alaska                                                              
Administrative Journal even when on the Internet.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
HANS  NEIDIG,   Staff  to  Senator   Dave  Donley,   Alaska  State                                                              
Legislature, surmised  that Representative James was  referring to                                                              
Senator Leman's  amendment that has  been incorporated  in several                                                              
bills  moving through  the legislature.   He  specified, "This  CS                                                              
still has Senator  Leman's amendment that was added  on to this in                                                              
earlier  versions  ...  and  it  would  take  on  that  subsequent                                                              
language  and be  noticed  under  the auspices  of  that piece  of                                                              
legislation [for] this other sections of this bill."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY informed the committee  that Pam LaBolle is present                                                              
and the Alaska  State Chamber supports this legislation.   He said                                                              
that he believes  all of the  concerns of the various  groups have                                                              
been  worked  out.   Although  there  is  not  much left  of  this                                                              
legislation, what is left is good.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA inquired  as to why  this only  speaks to                                                              
DEC.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  pointed out  that at the  beginning, the  bill was                                                              
broader  in  scope.    However,   the  Administration  recommended                                                              
narrowing the  scope to one agency  or one department in  order to                                                              
experiment with these changes.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2128                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JANICE  ADAIR,   Director,  Division   of  Environmental   Health,                                                              
Department   of   Environmental    Conservation,   testified   via                                                              
teleconference  from Anchorage.    She began  by thanking  Senator                                                              
Donley and his staff  for the changes they made to  SB 24 as it is                                                              
a significant  improvement  from earlier  versions.  She  believes                                                              
that Sections  2 and  5 [incorporate]  Senator Leman's  amendment,                                                              
which has been vehemently opposed  by the newspaper industry.  She                                                              
said, "Frankly,  we  don't want to  force something  on them  that                                                              
they're not ready  to accept.  We'd rather keep  working with them                                                              
on  a mutually  agreeable  solution  to  have public  notice  more                                                              
meaningful."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR  turned to  the continuous  renotice of the  regulations                                                              
whenever there are changes made.   She interpreted the bill to say                                                              
that  notice only  has to  be sent  to those  who have  previously                                                              
commented.    However,  the  department  feels that  it  would  be                                                              
preferable  to  have  a  single  round  of  renotice  rather  than                                                              
something that could potentially  be never-ending.  Ms. Adair then                                                              
turned  to the  five-year trial  period, which  she calculated  to                                                              
refer to the first  year of a new legislature.   However, she felt                                                              
that it might be  better to be the second year  of the legislature                                                              
as those  members may be  more able to  make an educated  decision                                                              
regarding  whether  this  pilot  project  should  be  expanded  or                                                              
continued.  The first year of a legislature  can mean a lot of new                                                              
people  in office,  who don't  have the  experience to  understand                                                              
this experiment.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2268                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES   mentioned  the  portion  of   Ms.  Adair's                                                              
testimony regarding not having so  many responses from the public.                                                              
Representative James said that she  hears the public say that they                                                              
give  their testimony  or  suggestions and  then  they never  hear                                                              
back.    Therefore,  she  felt that  notice  to  people  who  have                                                              
participated  in the process  is very important  if the  public is                                                              
ever to gain confidence in this system.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR  agreed.   She pointed  out that it  is for that  reason                                                              
that DEC does responsiveness summaries.   Anyone who comments on a                                                              
regulation that  DEC proposes  receives a responsiveness  summary,                                                              
which  summarizes the  comments that  were  received and  explains                                                              
what was done in relation to those  responses.  She agreed that if                                                              
people can  take the  time to write  and tell  us what  they think                                                              
about a proposal, then the least  the department can do is provide                                                              
the aforementioned  response.   However, responsiveness  summaries                                                              
are different than what is proposed  in SB 24.  She explained that                                                              
per SB 24 anytime  there is a change made as a  result of a public                                                              
comment,  the department  sends out  another notice  and there  is                                                              
another comment  period.  Although  the two may  be complimentary,                                                              
they  are  very different.    The  renotice  can delay  the  final                                                              
adoption of a regulation, which is  frustrating to people as well.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES said  she understood  the  concern; she  was                                                              
thinking of  specific regulations,  regulations with  such drastic                                                              
changes that  a comment [period]  was almost necessary again.   If                                                              
this, as  a pilot  program, is done  and the  subject is  not very                                                              
controversial, the  department could probably "short  circuit it."                                                              
However, if it  is controversial, Representative  James felt those                                                              
steps are important.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ADAIR   noted  that   internally  DEC   has  discussed   some                                                              
fundamental changes  to the Administrative Procedure  Act.  One of                                                              
those changes would  be the ability to talk with  those people who                                                              
have commented  in order to discuss  with the person  how specific                                                              
language changes  would affect their  concerns.  However,  the way                                                              
the  Administrative  Procedures Act  was  written  does not  allow                                                              
such.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   JAMES   remarked   that  she   understands   that                                                              
frustration; however, she also understands why that rule exists.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. ADAIR concurred.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2433                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  spoke to the renoticing  portion of the  bill.  He                                                              
explained  that SB 24  only requires  renoticing  when there  is a                                                              
substantial  change, a  change such  that those  who received  the                                                              
original notice  would not  understand or  know what changes  were                                                              
made.    He  surmised  that  once there  have  been  a  couple  of                                                              
substantial changes,  the changes  should become more  fine-tuning                                                              
and not substantial.   The bill  provides that if an  agency feels                                                              
that the  change is  not substantial, then  the agency  performs a                                                              
report, which  is made available  [to the public],  explaining why                                                              
the agency doesn't feel it was a  substantial change.  He stressed                                                              
that if there  is a substantial  change, he would like  the public                                                              
to know and have the opportunity to comment.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired  as to Senator Donley's  thoughts regarding                                                              
the five-year provision.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  answered that he  didn't feel strongly  about that                                                              
provision;  however,  he  didn't  believe  the  experimental  time                                                              
period  should  be  less  than five  years  because  some  of  the                                                              
provisions won't even begin to take effect [until then].                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-55, SIDE B                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  commented that he  would think the desire  would be                                                              
to keep it an even number.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES stated  that she didn't  totally agree  with                                                              
Ms. Adair's remarks that there may  be new [legislators] who don't                                                              
know  what to  do.   Although she  can  review her  time with  the                                                              
legislature and see what she has  learned, she also knows that she                                                              
can be  persuaded by  other [legislators] as  opposed to  folks at                                                              
home.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0025                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  referred to Sections 2  and 5, which deal  with the                                                              
newspaper notice.   He asked  if this  was added at  the sponsor's                                                              
request.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  clarified that [that  language] was added  by this                                                              
committee the  last time this bill  was before the committee.   He                                                              
pointed  out that  Senator Leman  had brought  over an  amendment,                                                              
which the committee chose to incorporate in SB 24.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT  recalled that  something  very similar  [to  these                                                              
provisions] was attempted in the  House Rules Committee on another                                                              
matter.    That   amendment  was  rejected  in   the  House  Rules                                                              
Committee.   Chairman Kott related  his belief that  [the language                                                              
in  Sections  2  and  5] jeopardizes  the  passage  of  the  bill.                                                              
Chairman Kott informed the committee  that he would be inclined to                                                              
delete those two sections.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY said, in response  to Representative Croft, that he                                                              
didn't mind the deletion of those sections.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0160                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  moved that the committee adopt  Amendment 1,                                                              
which would delete Sections 2 and 5 of Version L.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   ROKEBERG   objected,   but  then   withdrew   his                                                              
objection.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  announced, then, that  Amendment 1 was  adopted and                                                              
thus Sections 2 and 5 would be deleted.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT recalled  that  there was  a proposal  being                                                              
considered regarding  whether Sections 8 and 9 of  this Act should                                                              
take  effect  July 2005  or  2006.    He inquired  as  to  Senator                                                              
Donley's opinion on that.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  reiterated that  he didn't  feel strongly  on that                                                              
proposal,  but would  not go less  than five  years because  there                                                              
needs to be time  to determine how the [experiment]  is going.  He                                                              
said that he didn't have a problem  with changing it to six years.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT surmised  that Ms. Adair was suggesting  it would be                                                              
better [for  Sections 8 and 9 to  take effect] in the  second year                                                              
of a legislature.  He said he agreed  with Representative James on                                                              
this matter.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0221                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  moved to  report  HCS  CSSB 24,  version                                                              
LS0274\L,  Bannister, 4/7/00,  as  amended out  of committee  with                                                              
individual  recommendations  and  the accompanying  fiscal  notes.                                                              
There being no  objection, it was so ordered and  HCS CSSB 24(JUD)                                                              
was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 211-HEALTH CARE INSURANCE                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
HOUSE BILL  NO. 211, "An Act  relating to liability  for providing                                                              
managed  care services,  to regulation of  managed care  insurance                                                              
plans,  and  to  patient rights  and  prohibited  practices  under                                                              
health insurance; and providing for an effective date."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0252                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  informed the  committee  that there  are                                                              
letters of  endorsement for Version  N as amended from  the Alaska                                                              
State  Medical  Association (ASMA)  and  the Alaska  Physicians  &                                                              
Surgeons, Incorporated.   Representative  Rokeberg explained  that                                                              
the  these groups  are asking that the committee  "recede from our                                                              
amendment by adopting  the definition on medical  necessity and go                                                              
with all  the other  amendments that  the subcommittee  had done."                                                              
Therefore,  Representative Rokeberg  said he  understood that  the                                                              
doctors and  the insurance  industry are in  agreement.   The ASMA                                                              
letter recognizes  that the short time remaining  in session along                                                              
with the  complexity of  the two issues  [the liability  issue and                                                              
the medical  necessity issue]  does not  provide those  two issues                                                              
with  the amount  of attention  warranted for  the legislature  to                                                              
make a  reasoned policy decision  this session; ASMA  believes the                                                              
bill [version N as amended] should move forward.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI  pointed out  that although ASMA  and the                                                              
Alaska  Physicians  &  Surgeons,  Inc., support  Version  N,  that                                                              
version did not receive subcommittee recommendations.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected  that they'd supported Version                                                              
N as amended, which is basically Version S.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI surmised,  then, that  [the support]  is                                                              
for Version S without the "medical necessity" language.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  called an  at-ease at 8:11  p.m. and the  committee                                                              
reconvened at 8:13 p.m.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0380                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DON ETHERIDGE,  AFL-CIO, informed  the committee that  the AFL-CIO                                                              
is still opposed to HB 211.  The  trustees from the various Locals                                                              
have the same concerns as to the  increasing cost to the [AFL-CIO]                                                              
membership.   He  noted that  Mr.  Ed Burgan,  Brady Company,  has                                                              
brought to  his attention that  AFL-CIO members could  expect cost                                                              
increases to the membership due to HB 211.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG clarified that  the primary  cost drivers                                                              
are the  medical necessity and the  liability issues.   He pointed                                                              
out  that the  point  of service  option  is self-funding  due  to                                                              
underwriting  differentials.  Representative  Rokeberg  said, "The                                                              
only thing I  think that could cost anything would  be utilization                                                              
review, ...  that model  that's in  the bill  is being adopted  by                                                              
most insurance  companies in  the state."   Therefore, he  did not                                                              
understand  where  this  cost  analysis  is coming  from,  but  he                                                              
offered  to  talk with  Mr.  Burgan  about this.    Representative                                                              
Rokeberg  stated  that  he believes  Mr.  Burgan's  estimates  and                                                              
analysis  is unfounded  and incorrect.   Furthermore, he  believes                                                              
that the  unions are  largely unaffected as  the unions  are ERISA                                                              
(Employee Retirement  and Income Security Act) covered.   However,                                                              
he acknowledged that  there are unions, although  a minority, that                                                              
do  have underwritten  coverage  from  insurers  that may  not  be                                                              
covered by ERISA.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  related  his  belief  that  the  medical                                                              
necessity  provisions  of the  external review  procedures  should                                                              
largely satisfy the concerns of [ASMA  and the Alaska Physicians &                                                              
Surgeons, Incorporated] about medical  necessity.  The other issue                                                              
that was brought  up was the three-step external  review, which he                                                              
is  "not sure  it's a  misunderstanding  on their  part what  that                                                              
really is."  He further noted that  there was the desire to have a                                                              
policy statement from  the legislature that said if  there was any                                                              
ERISA jurisdiction  that they would  be exempt from it  since they                                                              
are ERISA.  Representative  Rokeberg said he did  not believe that                                                              
to be the correct policy call.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0520                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA   asked  whether  the  deletion   of  the                                                              
liability  and the  medical necessity  provisions  would make  the                                                              
bill more palatable.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. ETHERIDGE  agreed that  deletion of  those two sections  would                                                              
improve the bill.   He suggested that Representative  Rokeberg and                                                              
Mr. Burgan meet  to discuss these issues before  the bill proceeds                                                              
much farther.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG reminded  Mr. Etheridge  that he  himself                                                              
considers this a patient's rights bill.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. ETHERIDGE  commented that he  views this as a  doctor's rights                                                              
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  interjected that he would like  to hear from                                                              
the other groups.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0608                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JEFF  BULLOCK  (ph),  Alaska State  Medical  Association  and  the                                                              
Alaska  Physicians  & Surgeons,  Inc.,  noted that  the  committee                                                              
should have  the aforementioned letter(s)  from these groups.   He                                                              
clarified, "In  the spirit of compromise,  ..., we've come  to the                                                              
table and pulled  out two of the key sections that  was really the                                                              
driving motivation behind  the bill for the doctor's  in the first                                                              
place.  We're willing  to take those out in hopes  that we can get                                                              
a patient's bill  of rights through this year...."   He noted that                                                              
next year "we" would be back to address  the liability and medical                                                              
necessity sections.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT asked  Mr. Bullock  if he is  comfortable with  the                                                              
previous version.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. BULLOCK  answered, "Comfortable, no.   But it's  something ...                                                              
that  we feel  that  these  are the  two  areas that  have  strong                                                              
concern   with   the   insurance   industry   and   the   unions."                                                              
Furthermore,  he said, there  are other aspects  to the  bill that                                                              
make it worthwhile legislation.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI  pointed out  that the effective  date is                                                              
July 1, 2001.   She surmised that this legislation  could pass out                                                              
and next year  the medical necessity and liability  issue could be                                                              
worked  on; thus  the  latter portion  could  catch  up with  this                                                              
legislation before the effective date.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. BULLOCK remarked  that he had not noticed  the effective date,                                                              
but commented that it worked for "us."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG explained  that there is  a delay  due to                                                              
the  (indisc.) contracts and things  that need to work through the                                                              
system.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI surmised  that by that time, there may or                                                              
may not be federal legislation.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0738                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JERRY REINWAND,  Lobbyist for Blue  Cross, informed  the committee                                                              
that he has sent  the latest version to his clients,  from whom he                                                              
has not yet  heard from.  He  noted that "we" worked  very closely                                                              
with the unions  on this legislation, and through  that Mr. Burgan                                                              
has pointed out a few issues that "our people" missed.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG noted  that the  testimony he'd  heard at                                                              
the subcommittee meeting  was in support of the  version that came                                                              
out of subcommittee.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  REINWAND  responded  that  the  desire is  to  have  a  bill,                                                              
although  he did  not  believe they  ever  favored any  particular                                                              
version.   He noted that the  actual bill was not  available until                                                              
the other night.   After the medical necessity  language was taken                                                              
out, he instructed  them to put everything on hold.   He said that                                                              
he would forward any word as soon as he heard.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN  KOTT commented  that  he believes  the  deletion of  the                                                              
medical  necessity language  would  improve the  comfort level  of                                                              
Blue Cross, AETNA, et cetera.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG informed  the committee  that he  has had                                                              
contact with  AETNA and  Mr. Gordon  Evans' organization,  both of                                                              
which have  assured  him that they  are supporting  the bill  with                                                              
that language removed.  Representative  Rokeberg characterized Mr.                                                              
Reinwand's testimony as a "minor waffle."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  said that if it  is the committee's will  to remove                                                              
the medical necessity  language, there are a couple  of ways to do                                                              
so.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  suggested the  easiest way is to  take up                                                              
Version V and delete that section.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0884                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  made a motion that the  committee rescind                                                              
its action in  reporting CSHB 211(JUD), Version S  as amended, out                                                              
of committee.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0933                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  made  a motion  that  the  committee  adopt                                                              
Version  V  [LS0472\V,  Ford, 4/7/00]  as  the  working  document.                                                              
There being  no objection,  it was  so ordered  and Version  V was                                                              
before the committee.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  pointed out  that on  page  3, line  17,                                                              
after  the  word "acts",  the  word  "or conduct"  should  appear.                                                              
[This was subsequently labeled technical Amendment 1.]                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0962                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  moved   that  the  committee  adopt  the                                                              
following, which was subsequently labeled Amendment 2.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 25 through page 4, line 5,                                                                                    
          Delete subparagraph 2                                                                                                 
     Renumber accordingly.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  moved that the committee adopt  Amendment 3,                                                              
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1                                                                                                                     
          Delete lines 4-7                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  commented that he does not  believe that the                                                              
bill,  in  its  current  form,  should   be  entitled  the  Alaska                                                              
patient's bill of  rights.  Representative Croft  said he believes                                                              
that technical  work is being done.   However, the  major concerns                                                              
of patients  is being delayed and  perhaps a future bill  could be                                                              
more appropriately entitled the Alaska patient's bill of rights.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG objected  and  countered that  this is  a                                                              
patient's bill  of rights  and would be  a significant  benefit to                                                              
the citizens of this state.  He specified  that this bill allows a                                                              
new emergency room  standard, a choice of physician,  requires and                                                              
clarifies  the  external  review  process  with  peer  review  and                                                              
provides  the  elements  of  medical  necessity  within  the  peer                                                              
review.     Furthermore,   the  bill   clarifies  numerous   other                                                              
situations and  clarifies the relationships between  the physician                                                              
providers and  the insurance companies.   Those are  the elements,                                                              
besides liability, that are included  in the national patient bill                                                              
of rights.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT said he  did not  want to characterize  this                                                              
"watered-down" version as the Alaska patient's bill of rights.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Upon a  roll call vote,  Representatives Croft, Kerttula  and Kott                                                              
voted in favor of Amendment 3 and  Representatives Rokeberg, James                                                              
and Murkowski voted against it.   Therefore, Amendment 3 failed to                                                              
be adopted with a vote of 3-3.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1206                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES moved to  report the  new CSHB 211,  version                                                              
LS0472\V,  Ford,  4/7/00,  as  amended,   out  of  committee  with                                                              
individual recommendations and the  zero fiscal note.  There being                                                              
no objection,  it was  so ordered  and the  new CSHB 211(JUD)  was                                                              
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB 338-CRIMES INVOLVING TECHNOLOGY OR I.D.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
HOUSE  BILL  NO.  338,  "An  Act   relating  to  crimes  involving                                                              
computers,  access devices, other  technology, and  identification                                                              
documents;  relating  to  the  crime  of  criminal  impersonation;                                                              
relating to crimes committed by the  unauthorized access to or use                                                              
of  communications in  electronic  storage; and  providing for  an                                                              
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1289                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  moved  to   adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                              
substitute (CS),  Version D [GH2025\D, Luckhaupt,  3/23/00] as the                                                              
working document.   There  being no objection,  it was  so ordered                                                              
and Version D was before the committee.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  CARPENETI,   Assistant  Attorney  General,   Legal  Services                                                              
Section - Juneau,  Criminal Division, Department  of Law, informed                                                              
the  committee  that  HB  338  was  amended,  in  accordance  with                                                              
Representative Rokeberg's  concerns, to delete the  prior Sections                                                              
16 and 17, which  amended Title 47.  She pointed  out that on page                                                              
4, Section 10 was amended in order  to make it a class C felony to                                                              
commit  a crime  involving consumer  protection if  done over  the                                                              
Internet or  by a computer  network.  Representative  Rokeberg and                                                              
some witnesses  were concerned  that the prior  version of  HB 338                                                              
was too broad.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  mentioned  a  memorandum  from  Gerald  Luckhaupt,                                                              
Legislative  Counsel,  Division of  Legal  and Research  Services,                                                              
which addresses some of his suggestions.   Some of Mr. Luckhaupt's                                                              
suggestions  have been made  in the  Senate, which the  department                                                              
does not  have any objections to.   However, the  department would                                                              
prefer that the  committee not adopt suggestions 4(a)  and 5.  Mr.                                                              
Luckhaupt,  in  suggestion  4(a),   expresses  concern  about  the                                                              
definitions.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI   said  that  she   is  not  concerned   about  the                                                              
definitions and would not want them  combined.  She then turned to                                                              
Mr. Luckhaupt's suggestion 3 regarding  Section 8 of the bill.  If                                                              
this  change  to  Section  8 is  made,  then  preference  for  the                                                              
language would  be "recording or  electronic data" in order  to be                                                              
absolutely clear that the reference  is to data on a computer.  In                                                              
regard   to  Mr.   Luckhaupt's  suggestion   4(b)  regarding   the                                                              
definition  of an  "access device"  and the  word "key."   In  the                                                              
Senate the  word "key"  was deleted and  the word "algorithm"  was                                                              
inserted.  She explained that what  was intended was a code rather                                                              
than a "key"  to a house, which  was of concern to  Mr. Luckhaupt.                                                              
Ms.  Carpeneti addressed  Mr. Luckhaupt's  suggestion 5  regarding                                                              
the  definition  of "proprietary  information."    The  department                                                              
objects to  cross-referencing that  statute in  Title 48 as  it is                                                              
really  not a  criminal type  definition and  is too  broad to  be                                                              
referenced in criminal law.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1575                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT moved  that  the committee  adopt, from  Mr.                                                              
Luckhaupt's  memorandum dated  3/22/00,  suggestions 1,  2, 3  and                                                              
4(b).  He referred to this as Amendment 1.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT  clarified that Mr.  Luckhaupt's suggestion  3 would                                                              
be  supplemented   by  Ms.  Carpeneti's  comments   in  which  she                                                              
suggested  the   use  of  the   language  "or  electronic   data."                                                              
Furthermore,   Mr.   Luckhaupt's    suggestion   4(b)   would   be                                                              
supplemented  by  Ms. Carpeneti's  [suggestion]  to  use the  word                                                              
"algorithm" instead of "key."                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked  if there were any objections  to Amendment 1.                                                              
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1674                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BLAIR  McCUNE, Deputy  Director,  Alaska Public  Defender  Agency,                                                              
testified via  teleconference from Anchorage.   He noted  that the                                                              
agency's main  concern is with the  breadth of HB 338,  which is a                                                              
property crime  bill.  He  expressed the importance  with property                                                              
crimes to  link the penalty  to the damage  caused to  property or                                                              
economic interests.   He assumed that some of  the things included                                                              
in the companion  bill, SB 259, were also being  considered for HB                                                              
338  in order  to narrow  the  penalties and  scope  of the  bill.                                                              
Another area of concern for the agency  is the broad definition of                                                              
"access  device," which  could merely mean  having someone  else's                                                              
social security  number.  However,  when one thinks of  theft, one                                                              
usually thinks of  stealing some physical property  rather than an                                                              
identification  number.  He  pointed out  that Section  4(b) links                                                              
the fraudulent use of an access device  to property and the amount                                                              
of damage caused, which he believes to be a good thing.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  McCUNE  turned  to  Section   6,  which  refers  to  criminal                                                              
impersonation in the first degree  as a class B felony.  That is a                                                              
serious  offense.   If someone  does minimal  damage to  someone's                                                              
financial  reputation,  it  doesn't   seem  appropriate  that  the                                                              
individual would  face a  felony charge.   He moved on  to Section                                                              
11, which is  a class C felony.   He was not sure if  in paragraph                                                              
(2) the word  "misleading" remained; he expressed  concern that it                                                          
is a very broadly written statute  regarding the use of computers.                                                              
He  informed the  committee  that  there is  [already]  a class  A                                                              
misdemeanor  anti-hacking  statute.   Therefore,  when things  are                                                              
brought up  to the  felony level,  there is  the desire  to ensure                                                              
that  there is  some  demonstrable damage  to  public interest  or                                                              
personal  property.   Mr.  McCune  offered  to review  the  latest                                                              
version of HB 338 and provide the committee with comments.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1928                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  pointed  out  that  in  Version  D,  the                                                              
criminal  impersonation  in the  first degree  remains  a class  B                                                              
felony, and  it seems  that the mens  rae is criminal  negligence.                                                              
She remarked that  criminal negligence seems like  a low standard.                                                              
She then inquired as to Mr. McCune's thoughts on that.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. McCUNE  said that Representative  Kerttula had a  valid point.                                                              
He pointed  out that the federal  legislation after which  some of                                                              
HB  338 is  patterned  always seems  to  include an  "intentional"                                                              
[reference].    He  recalled  that the  language  of  the  federal                                                              
statute says something to the effect  of "with intent to defraud."                                                              
Therefore, he felt such language would narrow the scope.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI explained  that HB 338 protects people  who have had                                                              
their  identity  stolen and  used  to  defraud stores,  banks  and                                                              
credit card companies.  She pointed  out that it will be difficult                                                              
to prove  even criminal negligence  in terms of the  reputation of                                                              
the  person,  which  is where  the  harm  is.   This  statute  was                                                              
proposed in order  to make the victim the real  victim, the person                                                              
whose identity  has been  stolen, in addition  to the  stores that                                                              
are defrauded.  Ms. Carpeneti acknowledged  that reckless could be                                                              
used, but  it will  be difficult  to prove.   She emphasized  that                                                              
this is a serious  offense that really harms people  and should be                                                              
a class B felony.  Ms. Carpeneti  stated that she would not prefer                                                              
changing the  charge to recklessness.   She clarified,  "We're not                                                              
talking  about  defrauding  the   victim.    We're  talking  about                                                              
defrauding people  that you  get property from  and by  doing that                                                              
you are harming the financial reputation of a person."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented  that an underlying crime exists                                                              
and  the  individual  will  not only  be  charged  with  [criminal                                                              
impersonation in the first degree].                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI interjected that it  would depend.  She informed the                                                              
committee that  one of the cases  that led to the  introduction of                                                              
this legislation  was a  person in  Ketchikan, whose identity  was                                                              
stolen  in  Seattle.   The  individual  who  stole  the  Ketchikan                                                              
woman's  identity, opened  a  bank account  and  purchased a  car,                                                              
among  other things.    The person  could  not  be prosecuted  for                                                              
purchasing a car, but the person  could be prosecuted for damaging                                                              
the person's  reputation.  This  caused serious harm,  which could                                                              
last  for the  rest of  [the  victim=s] life  because this  person                                                              
still has her credit card number  and has never been prosecuted in                                                              
Washington  for   this.    Therefore,  raising   [the  charge]  to                                                              
recklessness  would make  it  more difficult  and  thus she  would                                                              
prefer that  not be done.   Ms. Carpeneti  clarified that  this is                                                              
not addressing the intent to defraud  in a federal statute because                                                              
this  addresses  the  consequences  of  certain  acts  on  another                                                              
person, not the person the property is being taken from.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  answered, in  response to Representative  Kerttula,                                                              
that she  didn't know  that the  federal Act  has this  particular                                                              
provision.  She  recognized that the state uses  intent to defraud                                                              
in  all  these  other  statutes;  however,  this  section  doesn't                                                              
address   defrauding   the  victim   but   rather  harming   their                                                              
reputation.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 00-56, SIDE A                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0049                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG   moved  to  report  CSHB   338  [version                                                              
GH2025\D,  Luckhaupt, 3/23/00]  as amended  out of committee  with                                                              
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  commented that  she  would research  the                                                              
mental state and bring that information to the floor.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI inquired  as  to the  next committee  of                                                              
referral for HB 338.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT answered that the next  committee or referral is the                                                              
House  Finance  Committee.   He  speculated that  the  [companion]                                                              
Senate bill  would come  over [before HB  338 crosses over  to the                                                              
Senate].                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0106                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  objected and  said  that  she wanted  to                                                              
insert a higher mental state.  Representative  Kerttula moved that                                                              
"reckless" be  inserted as  the mental state  for this.   [This is                                                              
Amendment 2.]                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained  that criminal negligence is one                                                              
of the  lowest mental  states that  there is.   Therefore,  she is                                                              
concerned that with a class B felony  with a presumptive sentence,                                                              
it is a very  "hefty" sentence.  Representative  Kerttula said, "I                                                              
just have a problem  writing a new statute including  a very, very                                                              
light mental state with a class B  felony.  I really think that is                                                              
too fast a step."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  informed  the  committee   of  the  definition  of                                                              
"criminal negligence" as follows:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     The person  acts with  criminal negligence with  respect                                                                   
     to a result  or a circumstance described  by a provision                                                                   
     of  law defining  a  defense when  the  person fails  to                                                                   
     perceive a  substantial and unjustifiable risk  that the                                                                   
     result will occur or that the  circumstance exists.  The                                                                   
     risk  must be  of  such a  nature  and degree  that  the                                                                   
     failure  to perceive  it constitutes  a gross  deviation                                                                   
     from  the  standard of  care  that a  reasonable  person                                                                   
     would observe in the situation.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI defined "recklessly" as follows:                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     The person acts  recklessly with respect to  a result or                                                                   
     to a  circumstance as  described by  a provision of  law                                                                   
     defining  a defense  when  the person  is  aware of  and                                                                   
     consciously disregards  a substantial and  unjustifiable                                                                   
     risk  that that result  will occur  or the  circumstance                                                                   
     exists.   The risk must be  of such a nature  and degree                                                                   
     that disregard of it constitutes  a gross deviation from                                                                   
     the standard  of conduct that a reasonable  person would                                                                   
     observe in  the situation.   A person who is  unaware of                                                                   
     the risk of  which the person would have  been aware had                                                                   
     that  person had  not been  intoxicated acts  recklessly                                                                   
     with respect to that risk.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI explained  that the difference is  whether one knows                                                              
of the risk and consciously disregards  the risk or the failure to                                                              
perceive  the risk is  a gross  deviation from  how people  should                                                              
behave.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0271                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG inquired  as to  the standard for  second                                                              
degree, a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KERTTULA   asked   if   it   would   default   to                                                              
Aknowingly.@                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  clarified  that it  is a circumstance  and thus  it                                                              
would default to recklessly.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it is a higher standard.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  explained  that  the  second  degree  addresses  a                                                              
different  situation  in  which  an  individual  assumes  a  false                                                              
identity  and defrauds  someone with  that false  identity.   With                                                              
criminal  impersonation  in the  first  degree,  an individual  is                                                              
defrauding  someone, but  the harm  the statute  addresses is  the                                                              
harm to the reputation of the person whose identity was stolen.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA commented that  she still believes  [that                                                              
the culpable  mental state] should  be reckless.  She  inquired as                                                              
to how many class B felonies actually  have criminal negligence as                                                              
a mental state.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI answered that criminal  negligent homicide [would be                                                              
a class B felony with criminal negligence as the mental state].                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA said that  is a good  example in  that an                                                              
individual  has killed  a  person  and the  mental  state of  [the                                                              
murderer] may not have to be as significant.   She reiterated that                                                              
she believes reckless  is more appropriate because  the individual                                                              
is aware of it and disregards it.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0448                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA reiterated  her former  motion to  insert                                                              
[on  page 4,  line 8]  "reckless"  as the  mental  state for  this                                                              
[rather than criminal negligence].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  asked if criminally negligent  homicide is a                                                              
class B felony.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied, "It is now."                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CROFT   surmised,   "With   criminal   negligence                                                              
enhancing somebody's  data record, we're going to put  on the same                                                              
level  as  criminally  killing  somebody   -  criminal  negligence                                                              
killing someone."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI clarified that this is a class C felony.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA,  in response  to  a question,  clarified                                                              
that she was referring to Section 6, which has a class B felony.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI noted that Mr. McCune  had mentioned that the Senate                                                              
had removed the "misleading" provision  in Section 11, which is of                                                              
concern  to Mr.  McCune.   Ms.  Carpeneti  clarified, "Other  than                                                              
that,  that's the  only thing  this bill  doesn't do  in terms  of                                                              
narrowing the bill down that the Senate version doesn't do."                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA restated her motion [Amendment 2].                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG maintained his objection.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  surmised, then, that "we" would  place it at                                                              
the  same level  as  criminal negligence  for  killing someone  to                                                              
criminal  negligence  for  damage  to  an  individual's  financial                                                              
reputation.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI remarked that it is  the same culpable mental state,                                                              
although it is different harm and a different act.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  said, "But  we'll  punish  it in  the  same                                                              
category."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI answered in the affirmative.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG asked if  criminal negligent  homicide is                                                              
similar to drunk driving homicide.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.   CARPENETI   specified   that  drunk   driving   is   usually                                                              
manslaughter.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0643                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  pointed out  that [Amendment 2]  is based                                                              
on the [idea] that the reckless standard  is a higher level as the                                                              
person more  knowingly does  something.  However,  in this  case a                                                              
person would steal a person's credit  card and use it to destroy a                                                              
person's financial reputation by  "ripping them off."  He asked if                                                              
his understanding is correct.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA   specified  that  to  be   the  problem;                                                              
criminal negligence is a very low  mental state, rather than being                                                              
a "thinking  act."  She continued,  "Then the next one's  going to                                                              
be reckless,  where you're  aware of it  and you disregard  it and                                                              
then you've  got intentional."   Therefore, she  felt that  with a                                                              
class B felony  "more knowing what you're doing"  should be there.                                                              
She   agreed  that   if   "you"  default,   "you"   would  go   to                                                              
Arecklessly.@                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  interjected  that  second  degree  is  a                                                              
different crime.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed.   She pointed out that normally if                                                              
a   standard  is   not  listed,   the  standard   used  would   be                                                              
Arecklessly.@                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  specified, "Reckless with regard  to circumstances;                                                              
knowing with regard to intent."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives  Kerttula, Murkowski, Croft                                                              
and  Kott voted  in  favor of  [Amendment  2] and  Representatives                                                              
Rokeberg and James  voted against it.  Therefore,  Amendment 2 was                                                              
adopted by a vote of 4-2.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0792                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  moved that the committee  adopt Amendment                                                              
3, which read:                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, lines 10 and 13,                                                                                                   
          Delete "or misleading"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0835                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MURKOWSKI  moved   to  report  CSHB  338  [version                                                              
GH2025\D,  Luckhaupt, 3/23/00]  as amended  out of committee  with                                                              
individual  recommendations  and  the accompanying  fiscal  notes.                                                              
There being no objection, it was  so ordered and CSHB 338(JUD) was                                                              
reported from the House Judiciary Committee.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SJR 27-CONST. AM: REVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
SENATE JOINT  RESOLUTION NO.  27 am,  Proposing amendments  to the                                                              
Constitution of the  State of Alaska relating to  revisions of the                                                              
state  constitution and  providing  that a  court  may not  change                                                              
language of a proposed constitutional amendment or revision.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0871                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DAVE  DONLEY, Alaska State  Legislature, testified  as the                                                              
sponsor  of  SJR  27.   He  explained  that  SJR  27,  a  proposed                                                              
constitutional amendment,  would do two  things.  First,  it would                                                              
allow  the  legislature  to  propose what  the  court  has  termed                                                              
"revisions" to the  state constitution to the  voters.  Currently,                                                              
the   word  "revisions"   appears   once  in   the  Alaska   State                                                              
Constitution  and that  is  found in  the  section addressing  the                                                              
constitutional conventions.  Furthermore,  the word "revisions" is                                                              
not really  defined.  He pointed  out that this became  a question                                                              
in the  Bess v. Ulmer  case in relation  to the prisoners'  rights                                                            
proposed constitutional  amendment.   In that situation  the court                                                              
found it to be a revision and a imprecise  definition was given in                                                              
regard  to what a  revision is  versus an  amendment.   Therefore,                                                              
this resolution would clarify that  the legislature would have the                                                              
power to perform revisions.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  turned to the second  thing that SJR 27  would do.                                                              
This  resolution  would  prohibit   the  court  from  altering  or                                                              
changing  the  language  of  an  amendment  or  revision  that  is                                                              
proposed  by the legislature  or by  a constitutional  convention.                                                              
In the Bess v.  Ulmer case the court modified the  language of the                                                            
definition  of marriage,  which  was the  first  time [the  court]                                                              
modified the language of a constitutional amendment.  He said:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     While  the  court  may  maintain  the  power  to  remove                                                                   
     something  from the  ballot,  it's very  problematic  to                                                                   
     have the  court modify the  language of something  prior                                                                   
     to  a  vote   of  the  people  because   obviously,  the                                                                   
     constitution  reserves the  power  for determining  what                                                                   
     should be  placed before the  people to the  legislative                                                                   
     branch.  Since  this requires a two-thirds  vote of both                                                                   
     bodies, how would the court  ever know that the modified                                                                   
     language  the court  has  substituted  for the  original                                                                   
     language  would've gotten the  required two-thirds  vote                                                                   
     under the constitution.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   DONLEY   said   the  courts   shouldn't   be   modifying                                                              
constitutional  amendments.   He  pointed  out  that "we"  have  a                                                              
statutory provision  for severability,  which allows the  court to                                                              
modify statutes.   However, that  doesn't apply to  resolutions or                                                              
amendments  to the constitution.   He  noted that  he has  a legal                                                              
opinion on that matter from Legislative  Legal Services.  In order                                                              
to be more precise on revisions,  Senator Donley suggested that on                                                              
page 1, line  6, the language "single subject  revisions" could be                                                              
added.  He explained his belief that  [the legislature] should not                                                              
do multiple  subject amendments.   Such  language would  allow the                                                              
prisoners' rights amendment; although  that would affect more than                                                              
one section of the constitution, it would be a single subject.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  DONLEY informed  the committee  that a  definition of  an                                                              
amendment versus  a revision  that appeared in  Bess v.  Ulmer was                                                            
referred to, in the majority opinion,  as a hybrid test.  However,                                                              
the  concurring  opinion,  which   was  correct  in  his  opinion,                                                              
criticized [that definition]  as being confusing and  not really a                                                              
hybrid test.   He  said that it  was really the  same test  as the                                                              
California Supreme  Court determined in the case  that Bess relied                                                            
upon in  general.  Senator Donley  explained, "In that  case, what                                                              
the  California Supreme  Court, (indisc.)  which  was restated  in                                                              
Bess, is   that amendments become  revisions when they  are either                                                            
quantitatively  or qualitatively  more  complex."   Therefore,  he                                                              
reiterated his  belief in the importance  of voters to be  able to                                                              
do  single-subject   amendments to  the  constitution as  it is  a                                                              
healthy process.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY  pointed out that  one danger of the  Bess decision                                                            
is that  it places  anything [the  legislature] does into  serious                                                              
question   as  to   whether  it   meets  the   vague  Bess   test.                                                            
Furthermore, it allows  the courts to "play politics  to a maximum                                                              
degree"  and drives  the  fuel  for a  constitutional  convention,                                                              
which he  believes would be  a mistake.   He felt that  the voters                                                              
amending the constitution  is a much more measured  process than a                                                              
constitutional convention.  Senator  Donley remarked that there is                                                              
a growing  constitutional convention  movement in  the state.   He                                                              
noted that he has  stressed to this group the need  to resolve the                                                              
Bess  question before  pushing  for a  constitutional  convention,                                                            
which could go in many different directions.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1263                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  DONLEY related  his belief that  the court  overstretched                                                              
its judicial  authority on amending  the actual language  proposed                                                              
by the legislature.  He further believes  that the court stretched                                                              
the argument in  regard to the specific proposition  before it, in                                                              
the  court's  reliance  on the  California  case  that  overturned                                                              
Proposition  115.   The  bill  packet  should  include a  copy  of                                                              
Proposition  115, which  is distinguishable  on its  merits.   The                                                              
proposal in Alaska, the prisoners'  rights, was determined to be a                                                              
revision.   The  proposal in  Alaska  was a  short single  subject                                                              
proposal which  was proposed  by the  legislature.  In  California                                                              
Proposition 115 was  a lengthy initiative to amend  the California                                                              
State Constitution;  it was a wholesale rewrite  of their criminal                                                              
rights.    He  felt  the  California   proposal  could  have  been                                                              
determined  by the  courts to  be a  revision as  it impacts  many                                                              
different elements of the California  criminal code.  Furthermore,                                                              
the California  proposal was an  initiative process which  is very                                                              
different  than   an  elected  body  proposing   a  constitutional                                                              
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY noted  that the bill packet should  also include an                                                              
analysis from the attorney who represented  the legislature in the                                                              
case.  Furthermore,  there was testimony taken on  the Senate side                                                              
from a variety  of views which suggest that something  needs to be                                                              
done  about the  Bess case.   Senator  Donley did  not see how  to                                                            
justify  the right  to privacy  amendment adopted  by the  voters;                                                              
under  the Bess  case he  didn't think  it [the  right to  privacy                                                            
amendment]  would   be  allowed   as  it  sweeps   throughout  the                                                              
constitution  and  it  would  fail  in the  Bess  case  under  the                                                            
qualitative and quantitative analysis.   Furthermore, he suggested                                                              
that limited  entry  would probably  fail under  the Bess test  as                                                            
well.   These are important  amendments that  leave one  to ponder                                                              
whether  if someone  wanted to  challenge  those amendments  under                                                              
Bess, how the court would respond to that.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1414                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT  inquired   as  to  who  in  the  Bess  case                                                            
suggested to  the court  that it could  sever the final  sentence,                                                              
which  is  mentioned   by  Attorney  Clarkson  in   his  materials                                                              
[included in  the bill packet]  as well  as the court  in footnote                                                              
57.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY pointed  out another problem with the  Bess case in                                                            
that the court  adopted simultaneous briefing.   He explained that                                                              
the Bess case  was about the definition of  marriage, specifically                                                            
the  lawsuit  was  filed  to remove  the  definition  of  marriage                                                              
question  from the  ballot.   One of  the arguments  in the  reply                                                              
brief -  which came at  the same time  such that the  defenders of                                                              
the constitutional amendments never  had a chance to respond - was                                                              
that  if  all three  of  the  proposed  constitutional  amendments                                                              
(redistricting, the definition of  marriage and prisoner's rights)                                                              
were considered  together as  an entity,  they would constitute  a                                                              
revision.  Therefore, the court shouldn't  allow all three of them                                                              
on the ballot at the same time.   The superior court rejected that                                                              
argument.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY pointed  out that this was not followed  up nor was                                                              
it a point on  appeal.  Therefore, the parties had  no notice that                                                              
the courts  would even  take this  issue up.   However,  the court                                                              
took it up  on its own volition  and ruled, which resulted  in the                                                              
removal  of prisoners'  rights from  the ballot  and amending  the                                                              
definition of marriage.  Senator Donley specified:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     So,  it  was  never  even  properly  before  the  court,                                                                   
     procedurally,  and it  certainly was  never allowed  the                                                                   
     type of briefing that a constitutional  question of this                                                                   
     magnitude and  a question of  separation of  powers like                                                                   
     this should be entitled to in the judicial process.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONLEY,  in response to  Representative Croft,  noted that                                                              
Attorney Clarkson,  in response to  a question in  oral arguments,                                                              
said that he  felt they could remove that sentence  if they wanted                                                              
to.    However,  Senator  Donley   felt  that  he  was  in  error,                                                              
especially   since  the   severability   clause  doesn't   address                                                              
resolutions or  constitutional amendments but  rather specifically                                                              
speaks to statutes.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG   asked  if  Senator  Donley   wanted  an                                                              
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  DONLEY remarked  that he  had been trying  to focus  this                                                              
resolution,  which could  be achieved  with the  insertion of  the                                                              
language "single  subject revisions" on  page 1, line 6.   He felt                                                              
that  such a  change would  provide people  with much  reassurance                                                              
that wholesale changes are not being  attempted.  He expressed his                                                              
belief  that single  subjects are  appropriate for  the voters  to                                                              
decide.   However,  he recognized  that this  opens it  up to  the                                                              
court's interpretation as to what a single subject is.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1597                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   ROKEBERG  commented   that   it  seems   mutually                                                              
exclusive because how could a single subject be a revision.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  DONLEY explained  that the  test that  was adopted  was a                                                              
qualitative  and   a  quantitative   test.    He   specified  that                                                              
quantitative refers to the number  of sections of the constitution                                                              
that it may impact.  For example,  subsistence is a single subject                                                              
and  by itself  under  the  Bess test  it  is clearly  a  revision                                                            
because it  affects fundamental human  rights and it  also affects                                                              
multiple sections of the constitution.   Therefore, it fails under                                                              
both levels,  but it remains a  single subject and he  believes it                                                              
appropriate for  the voters to have  the opportunity to  make that                                                              
decision.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  said he doesn't believe it  bears the weight                                                              
being put on it.  There can be single-subject  changes that are so                                                              
fundamental  to the constitutional  structure  that they  can't be                                                              
done by  amendment.  He  stated, "In effect,  we are conceding   -                                                              
when Senator  Donley talks about  a single subject  revision being                                                              
alright - that there are things that  are properly read out of our                                                              
power to amend; they're things that are beyond amendment."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  continued.  He said he understood  that what                                                              
Senator Donley  would characterize as multiple  subject amendments                                                              
might be beyond amendment.  However,  there are single issues that                                                              
are so comprehensive  that they are no longer  an amendment; those                                                              
usually address capping or changing  a variety of different rights                                                              
and  thus  change  the fundamental  structure  of  rights  or  the                                                              
relationship between the three branches of government                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CROFT said  he did  not believe  that privacy,  by                                                              
adding a single  right in addition  to others, would be  much of a                                                              
challenge  under Bess.   Although  he believes  subsistence is  an                                                            
interesting  issue, he  believes it  would survive.   The Bess  v.                                                            
Ulmer and  the California  line of  cases were   directed  at what                                                            
were very  comprehensive amendments and  he thought the  court was                                                              
correct in both.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  related his belief that Senator  Donley does                                                              
have  a point  in Section  2 in  that it  was Attorney  Clarkson's                                                              
mistake, as  he understood,  in oral argument  that the  court had                                                              
the power  to order deletion.   That  was a fundamental  error and                                                              
thus he   didn't  object to  inserting that  [the court]  can't do                                                              
that.   Representative Croft agreed  with Senator Donley  that how                                                              
the legislature  frames it is what  should go before  [the court].                                                              
Representative Croft  did feel that there is a  difference between                                                              
amendments  and   revisions.     Furthermore,  he  believes   that                                                              
revisions do belong in a constitutional convention.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked  that the revision standing alone                                                              
is better because of the actions of the Alaska Supreme Court.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  DONLEY said  that he was  merely making  a suggestion  to                                                              
move somewhat  towards Representative Croft's position.   However,                                                              
he believes that he and Representative  Croft have a philosophical                                                              
disagreement on the separation of  powers.  Still, he felt that he                                                              
and Representative Croft would both  agree that the single subject                                                              
is somewhere  in the middle.  Senator  Donley left it to  the will                                                              
of the committee.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1853                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT  moved that the committee adopt  Amendment 1,                                                              
to  delete  Section  1.   He  commented  that  Section 2  is  less                                                              
problematic for  him.  He  said, "I don't  think courts  should do                                                              
that,  ...  but I  think  the  Bess  v. Ulmer  framework  and  the                                                          
framework  of  our  constitution   allowing  amendments,  but  not                                                              
revisions is an appropriate one."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  objected and remarked that  Bess v. Ulmer                                                            
is the most egregious separation of powers he has ever observed.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives  Murkowski, Croft, Kerttula                                                              
and  Kott  voted  in favor  of  Amendment  1  and  Representatives                                                              
Rokeberg and James voted against  it.  Therefore,  Amendment 1 was                                                              
adopted by a vote of 4-2.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1939                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG moved to  report SJR  27 am, as  amended,                                                              
out  of   committee  with   individual  recommendations   and  the                                                              
accompanying  fiscal note.   There being no  objection, it  was so                                                              
ordered  and  HCS  SJR  27(JUD) was  reported  out  of  the  House                                                              
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
HB 401-COMPUTER NETWORKS AND SPAM ADS                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the  final order of business would be                                                              
HOUSE BILL NO.  401, "An Act relating to computer  networks and to                                                              
electronic mail  advertisements."  [Before the committee  was CSHB                                                              
401(L&C), labeled LS1470\H.]                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  testified as the  sponsor of HB 410.   He                                                              
explained that HB 401 creates a criminal  penalty for interrupting                                                              
utility services  on computer networks.   This is punishable  as a                                                              
class  B felony.    He pointed  out  that Section  2  of the  bill                                                              
defines  "utility",  and  Section   4  prohibits  the  sending  of                                                              
unsolicited  mail  via  electronic  mail  and  provides  that  the                                                              
Internet service providers be the arbiters.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2143                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  CARPENETI,   Assistant  Attorney  General,   Legal  Services                                                              
Section - Juneau, Criminal Division,  Department of Law, said that                                                              
the department has concerns with  Sections 1 and 2 of HB 401.  She                                                              
pointed out that  Section 1 amends criminal mischief  in the first                                                              
degree, which  is a class  B felony.   The law now  makes criminal                                                              
conduct  that   interferes  with   utilities  and  other   service                                                              
providers that deal with life and  health.  The addition in HB 401                                                              
would  make it  a class  B  felony to  interrupt  services over  a                                                              
computer  [being   used]  such  as   shopping  on   the  computer.                                                              
Therefore, Ms.  Carpeneti felt it  more appropriate to  place this                                                              
new prohibition in  criminal mischief in the second  degree, which                                                              
is a class  C felony.  Such  a placement would be  consistent with                                                              
what  the legislature  is  doing in  terms  of criminal  use of  a                                                              
computer.  She suggested that the  committee consider placing this                                                              
criminal law in AS 11.46.482(a),  which would result in this being                                                              
a class C felony rather than a class B felony.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG  posed a situation in which  an individual                                                              
places a wrench  into an electrical substation and  knocked it out                                                              
intentionally.   He inquired as to  what that would  be considered                                                              
[in terms of punishment].                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI   answered  that  it  would  probably   come  under                                                              
[criminal mischief in the] first degree.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected, "That's what this is."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out  that if an individual tampers                                                              
with  an oil  or  gas  pipeline or  a  supporting facility  of  an                                                              
airplane or helicopter, it is a [class] C felony.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked  that [in this case] it would not                                                              
be hampering [the  service] but rather shutting it  down.  This is                                                              
a denial  service attack, which shuts  down the entire  server and                                                              
the ISP  [Internet service provider]  that is similar  to shutting                                                              
down a utility server.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI  commented that one  would not be dealing  with life                                                              
and health issues.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  stated  that  it  addresses  substantial                                                              
economic harm.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI   remarked  that   economic  harm  would   be  more                                                              
appropriate as second degree criminal mischief.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that he was agreeable to that.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2349                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved that  the committee adopt Amendment                                                              
1, which read:                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 3-15:                                                                                                        
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     "Section 1.  AS 11.46.482(a) is amended to read:                                                                         
          (a) A person commits the crime of criminal                                                                            
     mischief in the second degree  if, having no right to do                                                                   
     so or  any reasonable ground  to believe the  person has                                                                   
     such a right,                                                                                                              
                    (1) with intent to damage property of                                                                       
     another, the        person damages property of another                                                                     
     in an amount of $550           or more;                                                                                    
                    (2 )the person tampers with an oil or                                                                       
     gas pipeline or          supporting facility or an                                                                         
     airplane or helicopter with         reckless   disregard                                                                   
     for the risk of harm to or loss of the                                                                                     
          property;[OR]                                                                                                         
                    (3) the person recklessly creates a risk                                                                    
     of damage in        an amount exceeding $100,000 to                                                                        
     property of another by         the   use    of    widely                                                                   
     dangerous means;                                                                                                         
                    (4)[Repealed, sec. 11 ch 71 SLA 1996.]                                                                      
                    (5)[Repealed, sec. 11 ch 71 SLA 1996.]                                                                      
                    (6) with intent to cause a substantial                                                                  
     interruption or impairment of  a service rendered to the                                                               
     public by  another person over  a computer network,  the                                                               
     person causes substantial interruption  or impairment of                                                               
     service to the public."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 1-14:                                                                                                        
          Delete all material                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2394                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved to  report CSHB 401(L&C) as amended                                                              
out  of   committee  with   individual  recommendations   and  the                                                              
accompanying   indeterminate  fiscal  notes.     There   being  no                                                              
objection, it was  so ordered and CSHB 401(JUD)  was reported from                                                              
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects