Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/10/2000 01:28 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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 - RESCINDED ACTION OF 4/06/00; MOVED NEW CSHB 211(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 338 "An Act relating to crimes involving computers, access devices, other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.