Legislature(2001 - 2002)

04/24/2002 01:12 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 24, 2002                                                                                         
                           1:12 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair                                                                                           
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Kevin Meyer                                                                                                      
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                                                                  
Representative Albert Kookesh                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Andrew Halcro                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 180                                                                                                              
"An Act requiring child services providers to obtain criminal                                                                   
background checks for child services workers."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     - RESCINDED ACTION OF 4/22/02; MOVED NEW CSHB 180(JUD)                                                                     
       OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Sheila A. Selkregg, Ph.D. - Anchorage                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - CONFIRMATION ADVANCED                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 263(RLS)                                                                                                 
"An Act  relating to the  subsequent acquisition of title  to, or                                                               
an interest  in, real property by  a person to whom  the property                                                               
has purportedly been granted in  fee or fee simple; and providing                                                               
for an effective date."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSSB 263(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 271                                                                                                              
"An Act relating  to recovery of punitive  damages resulting from                                                               
an aviation accident; and providing for an effective date."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 271(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 37(FIN)                                                                                                  
"An  Act   relating  to   collective  negotiation   by  competing                                                               
physicians  with health  benefit  plans, to  health benefit  plan                                                               
contracts,  to the  application of  antitrust laws  to agreements                                                               
involving  providers   and  groups   of  providers   affected  by                                                               
collective  negotiations, and  to  the effect  of the  collective                                                               
negotiation provisions on health care providers."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 37(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 140                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to gamma-Hydroxybutyrate."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 222(FIN)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating  to certain motor vehicles that  are required to                                                               
yield to following traffic."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 222(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 180                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:BACKGROUND CHECK OF YOUTH WORKER                                                                                    
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MCGUIRE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/13/01     0560       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/13/01     0560       (H)        HES, JUD                                                                                     
03/16/01     0636       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): DYSON                                                                          
04/10/01                (H)        HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                   
04/10/01                (H)        <Bill Postponed to 4/19>                                                                     
04/19/01                (H)        HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                   
04/19/01                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
04/19/01                (H)        MINUTE(HES)                                                                                  
02/04/02     2152       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): CROFT                                                                          
04/18/02                (H)        HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                                                                   
04/18/02                (H)        Moved CSHB 180(HES) Out of                                                                   
                                   Committee                                                                                    
                                   MINUTE(HES)                                                                                  
04/19/02     3048       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS                                                                        
04/22/02     3059       (H)        HES RPT CS(HES) NT 4DP 3NR                                                                   
04/22/02     3059       (H)        DP: WILSON, CISSNA, STEVENS,                                                                 
                                   DYSON;                                                                                       
04/22/02     3059       (H)        NR: COGHILL, KOHRING, JOULE                                                                  
04/22/02     3059       (H)        FN1: ZERO(HSS)                                                                               
04/22/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/22/02                (H)        Moved CSHB 180(JUD) Out of                                                                   
                                   Committee -- Time Change --                                                                  
                                   MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
04/24/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 263                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:AFTER ACQUIRED TITLE IN REAL PROPERTY                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
01/30/02     2067       (S)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
01/30/02     2068       (S)        L&C, JUD                                                                                     
02/06/02     2125       (S)        COSPONSOR(S): HOFFMAN                                                                        
02/12/02                (S)        L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
02/12/02                (S)        Moved CS(L&C) Out of                                                                         
                                   Committee                                                                                    
02/12/02                (S)        MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                  
02/13/02     2174       (S)        L&C RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE                                                                    
02/13/02     2174       (S)        DP: STEVENS, AUSTERMAN,                                                                      
                                   DAVIS, LEMAN,                                                                                
02/13/02     2175       (S)        TORGERSON                                                                                    
02/13/02     2175       (S)        FN1: ZERO(S.L&C)                                                                             
02/25/02                (S)        JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
02/25/02                (S)        -- Meeting Canceled --                                                                       
03/04/02                (S)        JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
03/04/02                (S)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
03/04/02                (S)        MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
03/27/02                (S)        JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
03/27/02                (S)        Moved CS(JUD) Out of                                                                         
                                   Committee                                                                                    
03/27/02                (S)        MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
03/28/02     2554       (S)        JUD RPT CS FORTHCOMING 3DP                                                                   
03/28/02     2554       (S)        DP: TAYLOR, ELLIS, COWDERY                                                                   
03/28/02     2554       (S)        FN1: ZERO(S.L&C)                                                                             
04/03/02     2606       (S)        JUD CS RECEIVED SAME TITLE                                                                   
04/10/02                (S)        RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP                                                                   
                                   203                                                                                          
04/10/02                (S)        MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                  
04/11/02     2731       (S)        RULES TO CALENDAR W/CS 4/11                                                                  
                                   SAME TITLE                                                                                   
04/11/02     2731       (S)        FN1: ZERO(S.L&C)                                                                             
04/11/02     2732       (S)        READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                         
04/11/02     2732       (S)        RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                  
04/11/02     2732       (S)        ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                    
                                   UNAN CONSENT                                                                                 
04/11/02     2732       (S)        READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB                                                                     
                                   263(RLS)                                                                                     
04/11/02     2733       (S)        PASSED Y20 N-                                                                                
04/11/02     2733       (S)        EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS                                                                    
                                   PASSAGE                                                                                      
04/11/02     2733       (S)        HOFFMAN NOTICE OF                                                                            
                                   RECONSIDERATION                                                                              
04/12/02     2754       (S)        RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                 
04/12/02     2754       (S)        TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                           
04/12/02     2754       (S)        VERSION: CSSB 263(RLS)                                                                       
04/15/02     2922       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
04/15/02     2922       (H)        JUD                                                                                          
04/24/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 271                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:CAP ON AVIATION ACCIDENT PUNITIVE DAMAGES                                                                           
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
05/04/01     1532       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
05/04/01     1532       (H)        L&C, JUD                                                                                     
05/06/01     1617       (H)        PRIME SPONSOR CHANGED                                                                        
04/10/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
04/10/02                (H)        Moved CSHB 271(L&C) Out of                                                                   
                                   Committee                                                                                    
                                   MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                  
04/11/02     2881       (H)        L&C RPT CS(L&C) 2DP 2NR 3AM                                                                  
04/11/02     2881       (H)        DP: HAYES, HALCRO; NR:                                                                       
                                   CRAWFORD,                                                                                    
04/11/02     2881       (H)        MURKOWSKI; AM: ROKEBERG,                                                                     
                                   MEYER, KOTT                                                                                  
04/11/02     2881       (H)        FN1: ZERO(ADM)                                                                               
04/11/02     2881       (H)        FN2: ZERO(CED)                                                                               
04/19/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/19/02                (H)        Heard & Held - Time Change -                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
04/24/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 37                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE:PHYSICIAN NEGOTIATIONS WITH HEALTH INSURE                                                                           
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) KELLY                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
01/12/01     0073       (S)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
01/12/01     0073       (S)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
01/22/01     0137       (S)        L&C REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD                                                                 
01/22/01                (S)        JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
01/22/01                (S)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
01/22/01                (S)        MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
02/21/01                (S)        JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
02/21/01                (S)        Moved CS(JUD) Out of                                                                         
                                   Committee                                                                                    
02/21/01                (S)        MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
02/22/01     0467       (S)        JUD RPT CS 2DNP 3NR NEW TITLE                                                                
02/22/01     0467       (S)        NR: TAYLOR, COWDERY,                                                                         
                                   THERRIAULT;                                                                                  
02/22/01     0467       (S)        DNP: ELLIS, DONLEY                                                                           
02/22/01     0467       (S)        FN1: (LAW)                                                                                   
02/22/01     0467       (S)        FN2: (CED)                                                                                   
02/22/01     0467       (S)        FN3: INDETERMINATE(ADM)                                                                      
02/22/01     0467       (S)        FN4: ZERO(HSS)                                                                               
03/01/01                (S)        L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
03/01/01                (S)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
03/01/01                (S)        MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                  
03/08/01                (S)        L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
03/08/01                (S)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
03/08/01                (S)        MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                  
03/13/01                (S)        L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                     
03/13/01                (S)        Moved CS(L&C) Out of                                                                         
                                   Committee                                                                                    
03/13/01                (S)        MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                  
03/14/01     0653       (S)        L&C RPT CS 2DP 3NR NEW TITLE                                                                 
03/14/01     0653       (S)        NR: PHILLIPS, DAVIS,                                                                         
                                   TORGERSON;                                                                                   
03/14/01     0653       (S)        DP: AUSTERMAN, LEMAN                                                                         
03/14/01     0653       (S)        FN1: (LAW)                                                                                   
03/14/01     0653       (S)        FN2: (CED)                                                                                   
03/14/01     0653       (S)        FN3: INDETERMINATE(ADM)                                                                      
03/14/01     0653       (S)        FN4: ZERO(HSS)                                                                               
03/28/01                (S)        FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                                                                
                                   532                                                                                          
03/28/01                (S)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
03/28/01                (S)        MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                  
03/28/01                (S)        FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE                                                                
                                   532                                                                                          
03/28/01                (S)        Moved CS(FIN) Out of                                                                         
                                   Committee                                                                                    
03/28/01                (S)        MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                  
03/29/01     0853       (S)        FIN RPT CS 3DP 1DNP 4NR NEW                                                                  
                                   TITLE                                                                                        
03/29/01     0853       (S)        DP: KELLY, WILKEN, LEMAN;                                                                    
03/29/01     0853       (S)        NR: DONLEY, AUSTERMAN, OLSON,                                                                
                                   GREEN;                                                                                       
03/29/01     0853       (S)        DNP: HOFFMAN                                                                                 
03/29/01     0853       (S)        FN1: (LAW)                                                                                   
03/29/01     0854       (S)        FN2: (CED)                                                                                   
03/29/01     0854       (S)        FN4: ZERO(HSS)                                                                               
03/29/01     0854       (S)        FN5: ZERO(S.FIN/ADM)                                                                         
04/04/01                (S)        RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP                                                                   
                                   203                                                                                          
04/04/01                (S)        MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                  
04/04/01     0932       (S)        RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 4/4/01                                                                 
04/04/01     0933       (S)        READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                         
04/04/01     0933       (S)        FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                  
04/04/01     0933       (S)        ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                    
                                   UNAN CONSENT                                                                                 
04/04/01     0933       (S)        READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB                                                                     
                                   37(FIN)                                                                                      
04/04/01     0933       (S)        PASSED Y13 N6 E1                                                                             
04/04/01     0934       (S)        ELLIS NOTICE OF                                                                              
                                   RECONSIDERATION                                                                              
04/05/01     0961       (S)        RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                 
04/05/01     0962       (S)        TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                           
04/05/01     0962       (S)        VERSION: CSSB 37(FIN)                                                                        
04/06/01     0875       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
04/06/01     0875       (H)        L&C, JUD, FIN                                                                                
04/23/01                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
04/23/01                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
04/23/01                (H)        MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                  
03/22/02                (H)        L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
03/22/02                (H)        Moved HCS CSSB 37(L&C) Out of                                                                
                                   Committee                                                                                    
                                   MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                  
03/26/02     2682       (H)        L&C RPT HCS(L&C) 1DNP 5NR                                                                    
03/26/02     2682       (H)        DNP: CRAWFORD; NR: ROKEBERG,                                                                 
                                   MEYER,                                                                                       
03/26/02     2682       (H)        HAYES, HALCRO, MURKOWSKI                                                                     
03/26/02     2683       (H)        FN6: ZERO(ADM)                                                                               
03/26/02     2683       (H)        FN7: (CED)                                                                                   
03/26/02     2683       (H)        FN8: (LAW)                                                                                   
04/10/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/10/02                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                  
04/24/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 140                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:PLACE GHB IN SCHEDULE IA                                                                                            
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CHENAULT                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
02/23/01     0413       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
02/23/01     0413       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
02/23/01     0413       (H)        REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                        
03/19/01     0656       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER                                                                      
04/24/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 222                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:REQUIRE SLOW DRIVERS TO PULL OVER                                                                                   
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
05/03/01     1465       (S)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
05/03/01     1465       (S)        TRA, FIN                                                                                     
02/12/02                (S)        TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                 
02/12/02                (S)        Moved CS(TRA) Out of                                                                         
                                   Committee                                                                                    
02/12/02                (S)        MINUTE(TRA)                                                                                  
02/19/02     2220       (S)        TRA RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE                                                                
02/19/02     2221       (S)        DP: COWDERY, WILKEN, TAYLOR,                                                                 
                                   WARD;                                                                                        
02/19/02     2221       (S)        NR: ELTON                                                                                    
02/19/02     2221       (S)        FN1: (DOT)                                                                                   
03/01/02                (S)        FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE                                                                
                                   532                                                                                          
03/01/02                (S)        Moved CS(FIN) Out of                                                                         
                                   Committee                                                                                    
03/01/02                (S)        MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                  
03/01/02     2337       (S)        DP: DONLEY, KELLY, GREEN,                                                                    
                                   AUSTERMAN,                                                                                   
03/01/02     2337       (S)        WARD; NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON                                                                     
03/01/02     2337       (S)        FN2: ZERO(DPS)                                                                               
03/01/02     2337       (S)        FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR SAME TITLE                                                                
03/13/02                (S)        RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP                                                                   
                                   203                                                                                          
03/13/02                (S)        MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                  
03/18/02     2449       (S)        RULES TO CALENDAR 3/18/02                                                                    
03/18/02     2451       (S)        READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                         
03/18/02     2451       (S)        FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                                                                  
03/18/02     2451       (S)        ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                                                                    
                                   UNAN CONSENT                                                                                 
03/18/02     2451       (S)        READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB                                                                     
                                   222(FIN)                                                                                     
03/18/02     2452       (S)        PASSED Y17 N1 E 2                                                                            
03/18/02     2452       (S)        LINCOLN NOTICE OF                                                                            
                                   RECONSIDERATION                                                                              
03/20/02     2476       (S)        RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                 
03/20/02     2477       (S)        TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                           
03/20/02     2477       (S)        VERSION: CSSB 222(FIN)                                                                       
03/22/02     2490       (S)        FN1: (DOT)                                                                                   
03/22/02     2635       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/22/02     2635       (H)        JUD, FIN                                                                                     
04/22/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
04/22/02                (H)        <Bill Postponed to 4/24/02>                                                                  
                                   - Time Change -                                                                              
04/24/02                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff                                                                                                       
to Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                               
House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                                              
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:   During discussion of HB  180, explained the                                                               
new  proposed   committee  substitute   (CS)  and   responded  to                                                               
questions.   During discussion  of SB  37, explained  the changes                                                               
made in  the proposed committee  substitute (CS) and  pointed out                                                               
the need for a technical amendment.   During discussion of SB 222                                                               
clarified aspects of the bill.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN                                                                                                             
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 115                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of SB 263.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
RUSSELL DICK, Natural Resource Manager                                                                                          
Sealaska Corporation                                                                                                            
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99801-1276                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Assisted with the presentation of SB 263.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
JON TILLINGHAST, General Counsel                                                                                                
Sealaska Corporation                                                                                                            
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska  99801-1276                                                                                                      
POSITION   STATEMENT:     Responded  to   questions  during   the                                                               
discussion of SB 263.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, Staff                                                                                                       
to Representative Andrew Halcro                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 414                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  discussion of  HB  271, which  was                                                               
sponsored  by the  House Labor  and Commerce  Standing Committee,                                                               
responded to questions on behalf  of Representative Halcro, chair                                                               
of the subcommittee on aviation insurance.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR PETE KELLY                                                                                                              
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 518                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of SB 37.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DONNY OLSON                                                                                                             
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 510                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided comments  during discussion  of SB                                                               
37.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SHARALYN "SUE" WRIGHT, Staff                                                                                                    
to Representative Mike Chenault                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 432                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:   Presented HB 140 on behalf  of the sponsor,                                                               
Representative Chenault.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
DEB BLIZZARD, R.N.                                                                                                              
PO Box 868                                                                                                                      
Soldotna, Alaska  99669                                                                                                         
POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided comments  during discussion  of HB                                                               
140.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
JULIA P. GRIMES, Lieutenant                                                                                                     
Division of Alaska State Troopers                                                                                               
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
5700 East Tudor Road                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska  99507                                                                                                        
POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided comments  during discussion  of HB                                                               
140 and responded to questions.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director                                                                                                   
Public Defender Agency (PDA)                                                                                                    
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska  99501-2090                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 140.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SARA WRIGHT, Staff                                                                                                              
to Senator Dave Donley                                                                                                          
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 506                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:   Presented SB 222 on behalf  of the sponsor,                                                               
Senator Donley.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 02-54, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  NORMAN  ROKEBERG  called   the  House  Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee  meeting  to  order  at   1:12  p.m.    Representatives                                                               
Rokeberg, Coghill, Meyer, and Berkowitz  were present at the call                                                               
to  order.   Representatives  James and  Kookesh  arrived as  the                                                               
meeting was in progress.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HB 180 - BACKGROUND CHECK OF YOUTH WORKER                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0030                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced  that the first order  of business would                                                               
be  HOUSE  BILL  NO.  180,   "An  Act  requiring  child  services                                                               
providers  to   obtain  criminal  background  checks   for  child                                                               
services  workers."   [In committee  packets was  a new  proposed                                                               
committee  substitute  (CS)  for  HB  180,  version  22-LS0642\U,                                                               
Lauterbach, 4/24/02.]                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0163                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER made  a motion  to rescind  the committee's                                                               
action on 4/22/02  in reporting CSHB 180(JUD)  [CSHB 180(HES), as                                                               
amended on 4/22/02] from committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0169                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0209                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HEATHER  M. NOBREGA,  Staff  to  Representative Norman  Rokeberg,                                                               
House  Judiciary Standing  Committee,  Alaska State  Legislature,                                                               
explained that  in drafting CSHB 180(JUD)  [following the hearing                                                               
on  4/22/02],  some  problems were  discovered,  and  that  these                                                               
problems have  been outlined in  a memo provided by  the drafter.                                                               
The first  problem revolves around  the addition in Section  5 of                                                               
language  relating to  indictment, which  raises equal-protection                                                               
issues because  there are other  types of situations  in criminal                                                               
law  that are  similar  to indictment  but  are not  specifically                                                               
labeled as such.   In the new proposed CS,  the language relating                                                               
to  indictment  has  been  removed,   although  the  drafter  has                                                               
provided alternative wording in a  memo:  after "license" on page                                                               
4, line 25, insert "is  charged by information of complaint with,                                                               
is under indictment or presentment for, or".                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  NOBREGA said  that the  second problem  revolves around  the                                                               
date by  which the report  from the task  force is due;  with the                                                               
change made on  4/22/02, the report would be due  one month after                                                               
the task force  is terminated.  In the new  proposed CS, the date                                                               
by  which the  report is  due coincides  with the  date the  task                                                               
force  is terminated,  that  being  the first  day  of the  first                                                               
regular session  of the  23rd legislative  session.   Ms. Nobrega                                                               
noted that  a third change to  the new proposed CS  was requested                                                               
by the sponsor;  this change on page 9 [line  12] stipulates that                                                               
the public  members of  the task  force are  not entitled  to per                                                               
diem or travel  expenses, and should ensure that  the fiscal note                                                               
remains zero.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0410                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  noted that  Representative Berkowitz  has removed                                                               
his objection  and that there  were no further objections  to the                                                               
motion  to  rescind  the committee's  action  in  reporting  CSHB                                                               
180(JUD)  out  of  committee.     Therefore,  CSHB  180(HES),  as                                                               
amended, was back before the committee.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0452                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  moved to adopt  the new proposed CS  for HB                                                               
180, version  22-LS0642\U, Lauterbach, 4/24/02, as  a work draft.                                                               
There being no objection, Version U was before the committee.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. NOBREGA, in response to  a question, confirmed that Version U                                                               
contains  the three  changes she  spoke  of.   She remarked  that                                                               
according  to the  drafter, any  changes to  Version U  regarding                                                               
indictment   should   also   include   language   pertaining   to                                                               
"presentment" and "charged by information of complaint".                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ,   on  the  point  of   that  suggested                                                               
language,  said   that  he   is  not   familiar  with   the  term                                                               
"'presentment'  as  it's  used up  here,"  that  "information  of                                                               
complaint" is  sometimes "done" by  the district attorney  or the                                                               
arresting officer, and  that the term "indictment"  seemed to him                                                               
to offer  an additional level  of protection.  "If  this presents                                                               
problems  -  I  don't  anticipates  it would  -  but  I  have  no                                                               
objection to these changes," he  added, mentioning, however, that                                                               
"it is conceptually different, in my mind."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. NOBREGA pointed  out that language similar  to that suggested                                                               
by the  drafter for  page 4,  line 25,  can be  found on  page 3,                                                               
lines 24 and  25:  "charged by information or  complaint with, or                                                               
under  indictment  or  presentment  for a  crime  listed".    She                                                               
reiterated that according  to the drafter, this  type of language                                                               
would  be preferable  to  just the  word  "indicted", should  the                                                               
committee choose to go that route with the provision on page 4.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  noted that  the language she  refers to                                                               
on page 3 begins with:  "is under investigation or arrest for".                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  NOBREGA  clarified that  she  was  simply pointing  out  the                                                               
similarities in  the language  regarding "charged  by information                                                               
or complaint with",  rather than suggesting that  the entirety of                                                               
the sentence on page 3 should also be used on page 4.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0562                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  asked  for   an  explanation  of  when                                                               
someone would be "under investigation".                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. NOBREGA replied:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Actually, ...  "under investigation" is  different than                                                                    
     what we were  talking about.  I was  just talking about                                                                    
     "indictment",  "presentment", or  "charged with".   The                                                                    
      "under investigation" is completely separate [from]                                                                       
     what we had been discussing on [4/22/02].                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    BERKOWITZ    indicated    that    the    "under                                                               
investigation" language on  page 3 has now  caught his attention;                                                               
"I have  no complaints about  the other  part of the  sentence as                                                               
it's been  amended, but now  seeing this  other part -  'is under                                                               
investigation' ..."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  pointed out  that it  was a  provision on  page 4                                                               
that was  amended on  4/22/02, whereas the  provision on  page 3,                                                               
which  has language  similar to  what is  being suggested  by the                                                               
drafter for page 4, has yet to be discussed.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said,  "A mistake was made  and now that                                                               
I see  something that's  problematic, I  want to  fix it."   What                                                               
does  "under investigation"  mean?   Does that  mean someone  has                                                               
called  in  a  complaint?    Does it  mean  an  investigation  is                                                               
[pending]?                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG suggested  that the  committee first  address the                                                               
issue  of whether  to  amend  page 4,  line  25,  to include  the                                                               
language suggested  by the drafter, since  the original amendment                                                               
regarding indictment was not incorporated into Version U.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0686                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  explained  that  Amendment 1  would  insert  the                                                               
following after  "license" on page  4, line  25:  "is  charged by                                                               
information   of  complaint   with,   is   under  indictment   or                                                               
presentment for, or".                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0710                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  objected for  the purpose  of discussion.                                                               
He said that "certainly we're  talking about placement here," but                                                               
it's only  after the conditions  [from page 3] are  applied, "and                                                               
I'm wondering if  it isn't already covered and  if it's necessary                                                               
to even put in this section [on  page 4]."  The provision on page                                                               
3  involves  a licensing  issue,  and  the  provision on  page  4                                                               
involves  a  placement issue;  Amendment  1  would apply  to  the                                                               
provision  regarding placement,  he  noted, but  "it also  refers                                                               
back  to this  licensing" provision,  and "they've"  already been                                                               
scrutinized under this very same language on page 3.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 1:25 p.m. to 1:26 p.m.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that he approved of [Amendment 1]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  asked:     Does  the  department  have                                                               
authority to remove [a license] if  it has some level of cause to                                                               
be concerned, short of a conviction?                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  suggested  that   in  making  the  amendment  on                                                               
4/22/02, Representative  Berkowitz was  merely attempting  to use                                                               
the term  "indicted" as a  catchall in  case there had  been some                                                               
charges brought.   He relayed  that he  did not have  any problem                                                               
with [adopting] Amendment 1.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL said  that he  struggles with  [the term]                                                               
"charge".  He elaborated:                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     I  think that  sometimes  in  these family  situations,                                                                    
     there are  all kinds  of real high-tension  issues, and                                                                    
     just the fact that somebody  might level a charge, [it]                                                                    
     may  not be  necessary to  stop  a placement.   And  in                                                                    
     answer  to   Representative  Berkowitz's   question,  I                                                                    
     believe  they  do  have discretionary  powers  ...  for                                                                    
     placement.   This is just ...  a bar ... if  there is a                                                                    
     conviction.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0881                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ withdrew  Amendment 1,  adding that  he                                                               
understands Representative  Coghill's concerns.   He  then turned                                                               
to the language on page 3, line 24.  He said:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     The department  can't issue an  initial license  if the                                                                    
     applicant "is  under investigation".   That's  a pretty                                                                    
     amorphous term  - "is under investigation";  there's no                                                                    
     certainty that  an applicant would know  that they were                                                                    
     under an investigation.   Investigations sometimes lead                                                                    
     to people  being more  frequently (indisc.  - coughing)                                                                    
     being cleared, and I just  don't know what the standard                                                                    
     is there.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  said he agreed.   He  then mentioned that  he was                                                               
familiar  with a  situation  involving a  foster  parent who  was                                                               
vindicated.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0972                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ made  a  motion  to adopt  [Conceptual]                                                               
Amendment 2:  on page 3,  line 24, delete "is under investigation                                                               
or arrest for".                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked why "under arrest for" should be deleted.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that if  the arrest is not followed                                                               
up with "an information or  complaint," that means someone's been                                                               
released because there weren't grounds to hold him/her.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  surmised,  then, that  Representative  Berkowitz                                                               
wants  the  situation to  at  least  reach  the formal  level  of                                                               
"information or complaint".                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  confirmed  this,  and  clarified  that                                                               
[Conceptual]   Amendment   2   ought  to   delete   only   "under                                                               
investigation or arrest  for", leaving line 24 to  begin with "is                                                               
charged  by".    He  added  that  apparently  "this  language  is                                                               
somewhere else in the bill."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  stated, "Well,  if it is,  let's have  it removed                                                               
also."   In  response  to  a question,  he  said that  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  2 would  remove "under  investigation  or arrest  for"                                                               
from page 3, line  24, as well as from anyplace  else in the bill                                                               
that contains that same language.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1063                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that there  were no objections to Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 2.  Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1065                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES   moved  to  report   version  22-LS0642\U,                                                               
Lauterbach,   4/24/02,  as   amended,  out   of  committee   with                                                               
individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  zero  fiscal                                                               
note.  There  being no objection, new CSHB  180(JUD) was reported                                                               
from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1097                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  announced  that  the  committee  would  consider                                                               
Sheila  A.  Selkregg,  Ph.D.,  as   appointee  to  the  Board  of                                                               
Governors of the Alaska Bar.   He noted that Dr. Selkregg was not                                                               
available for questions at this time.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ mentioned  that  he  knew Dr.  Selkregg                                                               
personally, declared  a possible  conflict of interest,  and said                                                               
that he  would recommend Dr.  Selkregg as appointee to  the Board                                                               
of  Governors of  the  Alaska Bar  as well  as  "for pretty  much                                                               
anything she ever wanted to do.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER indicated  that he has had  occasion to work                                                               
with Dr. Selkregg, and surmised that she would do a good job.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG   reminded  members  that  signing   the  reports                                                               
regarding  appointments  to  boards  and commissions  in  no  way                                                               
reflects  individual  members'  approval or  disapproval  of  the                                                               
appointees, and that the nominations  are merely forwarded to the                                                               
full legislature for confirmation or rejection.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1172                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  made a  motion  to  advance from  committee  the                                                               
nomination  of Sheila  A. Selkregg,  Ph.D., as  appointee to  the                                                               
Board of Governors of the Alaska  Bar.  There being no objection,                                                               
the confirmation was advanced.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SB 263 - AFTER ACQUIRED TITLE IN REAL PROPERTY                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1206                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  next order of  business would                                                               
be  CS FOR  SENATE BILL  NO. 263(RLS),  "An Act  relating to  the                                                               
subsequent  acquisition of  title  to, or  an  interest in,  real                                                               
property by  a person to  whom the property has  purportedly been                                                               
granted  in fee  or fee  simple; and  providing for  an effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1220                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   LOREN  LEMAN,   Alaska   State  Legislature,   sponsor,                                                               
explained  that  representatives   of  the  Sealaska  Corporation                                                               
("Sealaska")  brought forth  the concept  of SB  263 in  order to                                                               
solve  a  dilemma that  Sealaska  is  experiencing regarding  the                                                               
transfer  of  property  and  the ability  of  homeowners  to  use                                                               
property that  comes to them  via transfers of land  from village                                                               
corporations; this  dilemma occurs  when the  village corporation                                                               
has  the surface  rights  but its  regional  corporation has  the                                                               
subsurface rights.  He noted  that village corporations sometimes                                                               
transfer  land to  shareholders via  what is  called a  quitclaim                                                               
deed, which provides that any title  or rights are given up.  But                                                               
when quitclaim deeds are used,  because [village] corporations do                                                               
not  have subsurface  rights, the  shareholders do  not gain  the                                                               
right to  use or  disturb the  subsurface.  He  said that  SB 263                                                               
will amend  the conveyance statutes  to allow for what  is called                                                               
"after-acquired title" for shareholders,  that it will only apply                                                               
to Alaska  Native Claims  Settlement Act  (ANCSA) lands,  that he                                                               
knows  of no  opposition to  the  current version,  and that  the                                                               
administration is comfortable with the bill.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH declared a [potential] conflict.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said she  supports the  concept of  SB 263.                                                               
She  asked  whether,   in  the  future,  some   other  method  of                                                               
transferring  property could  be  used that  wouldn't create  the                                                               
problems  currently  being  experienced with  the  use  quitclaim                                                               
deeds.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  LEMAN  said  that  the   other  method  of  transferring                                                               
property is  via a warranty  deed, "where you 'warrant'  that you                                                               
have ...  a certain right and  then transfer that."   But because                                                               
quitclaim deeds  were used  instead, he  remarked, "it  creates a                                                               
real challenge."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES asked  whether  village corporations  could                                                               
change their  practice of using  quitclaim deeds and  instead use                                                               
warranty deeds.  She suggested that  that would be a better long-                                                               
term solution solution.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR LEMAN  offered that others  present could  better respond                                                               
to questions regarding property transfer law.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1408                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH posited that  had Sealaska Corporation and                                                               
other corporations  received warranty titles in  the first place,                                                               
that  method  could  have  been  used  to  transfer  property  to                                                               
shareholders.   "But  we didn't  receive title  under a  warranty                                                               
deed,"  he noted,  "and we're  still continuing  to get  title in                                                               
pieces and increments."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked:  "What's the  method of conveyance?  Just a                                                               
patent from the federal government?"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH replied,  "we never  got warranty  title;                                                               
... I suppose  we did get a quitclaim deed  ourselves, but ... we                                                               
didn't get it all, for example, in  one quick sweep, we got it in                                                               
increments because we  were required to select  certain pieces of                                                               
parcels as we went along."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that SB  263 "Establishes, by definition,                                                               
... ANCSA  real property, so this  is only a portion  of what may                                                               
be;  like native  allotment  lands would  not  be included  under                                                               
this."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOOKESH  said   it  doesn't   refer  to   native                                                               
allotments; [the bill] only refers  to lands received by regional                                                               
and village  corporations under ANCSA,  and it has nothing  to do                                                               
with the "allotment  Act," which is an entirely  different Act of                                                               
Congress.  In response to a question, he said:                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     It  becomes trust  property when  it is  received under                                                                    
     [the] "allotment Act,"  and it can be held  in trust by                                                                    
     the BIA  [Bureau of Indian Affairs],  unless you decide                                                                    
     to take it  out of trust.  And the  person who receives                                                                    
     [the] allotment  has the  ability, by  law, to  take it                                                                    
     out of trust and turn it  into a "fee simple," and they                                                                    
     could sell it.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1499                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  surmised  that  SB 263  would  not  affect  that                                                               
situation.  He  asked whether any other lands  have been conveyed                                                               
- for example,  "some reservation lands under  Metlakatla" - that                                                               
weren't conveyed by ANCSA.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH said  that Metlakatla  is a  reservation,                                                               
and the entire island  is held in trust.  There  is no other land                                                               
that  this  [bill] would  [apply  to]  except for  Alaska  Native                                                               
Claims Settlement  Act lands, he  added, "and we have  a specific                                                               
amount of land that that [bill] does cover."  He continued:                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     And  the  only  thing  we're  talking  about,  just  to                                                                    
     clarify for  all of you,  is that  Sealaska Corporation                                                                    
     hasn't  done this,  but the  village corporations  have                                                                    
     given home sites to  all their individual shareholders.                                                                    
     For  example, the  village corporation  I  belong to  -                                                                    
     Kootznoowoo Incorporated ["Kootznoowoo"]  - gave us all                                                                    
     three-quarters [of an acre] to  an acre each.  And what                                                                    
     we received from the village  corporations is just what                                                                    
     they own, which was  the surface; Sealaska Corporation,                                                                    
     on the other hand, owns  all the subsurface under those                                                                    
     village  corporation land  entitlements that  they gave                                                                    
     to shareholders.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     I  have, for  example, a  piece of  land that's  three-                                                                    
     quarters  of an  acre, I  have the  ... [surface]  from                                                                    
     Kootznoowoo,  but Sealaska  still owns  the subsurface.                                                                    
     So, if I decide  I want to put a post  in the ground to                                                                    
     hold up  a house that I  want to build on  it, then I'm                                                                    
     trespassing  - technically  - on  Sealaska's land.   So                                                                    
     what  we're  trying  to  do here  is  ...  give  after-                                                                    
     acquired title, so that if I  want to dig a post in the                                                                    
     ground, then I'm not trespassing on Sealaska's land.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1600                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
RUSSELL  DICK, Natural  Resource  Manager, Sealaska  Corporation,                                                               
explained  that   Sealaska  is   the  regional   corporation  for                                                               
Southeast  Alaska  and,  as  such,  owns  the  subsurface  estate                                                               
underlying all village [corporation]  and urban corporation lands                                                               
within the  Southeast Alaska  region.   Referring to  a situation                                                               
involving Sealaska and Kootznoowoo, he said:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     In 1995, we entered  into discussions with Kootznoowoo,                                                                    
     which is the village  corporation for Angoon, regarding                                                                    
     the granting  of a  subsurface easement  to Kootznoowoo                                                                    
     for   its  shareholder   home-site  program   in  which                                                                    
     Kootznoowoo was  going to subdivide its  ANCSA land for                                                                    
     allocation  to shareholders.   Usually  when confronted                                                                    
     with  these   types  of  programs,  we   will  issue  a                                                                    
     subsurface agreement  to that village  corporation that                                                                    
     would automatically inure to  the successor of interest                                                                    
     in the property, regardless of  whether or not it's the                                                                    
     shareholder now,  and then that shareholder  sells that                                                                    
     property  later   to  a  non-shareholder.     And  like                                                                    
     Representative Kookesh  said, that  subsurface easement                                                                    
     agreement would allow  them to put in a post,  or ... a                                                                    
     sewer  system, or  a water  system, or  foundations, or                                                                    
     what have you.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Now,   unfortunately,   Kootznoowoo  went   ahead   and                                                                    
     conveyed over  600 individual lots to  the shareholders                                                                    
     without  the  subsurface  easement agreement,  and  the                                                                    
     conveyance was done through  a surface estate quitclaim                                                                    
     deed.   Now,  because  the  doctrine of  after-acquired                                                                    
     title  doesn't apply  to quitclaim  deeds, we're  faced                                                                    
     with  either having  to  provide individual  subsurface                                                                    
     easements to each individual lot  owner or allowing the                                                                    
     cloud of  title to remain  on our property,  which also                                                                    
     brings to  bear the  issue of  adverse possession.   We                                                                    
     have no  intention nor  do we have  the desire  to hold                                                                    
     any  home-site   owner  liable  for  trespass   on  our                                                                    
     property,  but  we  would like  to  avoid  having  this                                                                    
     problem continue  to fester and to  address the problem                                                                    
     in a manner that's least  imposing to everybody and all                                                                    
     - financially ...  for ourselves and ...  for the home-                                                                    
     site owners as well.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1695                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. DICK concluded:                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     So  ...  that's  ...  our  reason  for  this  piece  of                                                                    
     legislation.      And   I    think   we   can   address                                                                    
     Representative  James's question  with  regard to  this                                                                    
     piece of legislation fixing a  current problem, but ...                                                                    
     we'd  like to  see it  go  forward as  a mechanism  for                                                                    
     solving   future  issues   as  well.     See,   village                                                                    
     corporations ... transfer the  surface estate, and they                                                                    
     don't have  to approach Sealaska to  get the permission                                                                    
     to do  so.   So there's nothing  that requires  them to                                                                    
     let  us  know that  they're  going  to be  transferring                                                                    
     surface estate.   ... And if  we use this bill  to only                                                                    
     address  this issue  at hand,  ... then  we potentially                                                                    
     could be  coming back to you  ... in a year,  or a year                                                                    
     and a half, or two years....                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  said, "That  does bother  me just  a little                                                               
bit, but of  course it's none of my business,  I think; it's your                                                               
land, you  can do whatever  you want to with  it, but we  have to                                                               
help  you make  these  things work."    She asked  Representative                                                               
Kookesh, "Do  you have all of  that land tendered to  you now, or                                                               
do  you having  pending cases  like the  state does  [wherein] we                                                               
don't have  the patents yet?"   She  also asked whether  the land                                                               
was gotten  by patent or  "real good perfection that  it's always                                                               
going  to be  yours and  you're  never going  to be  challenged,"                                                               
noting that  "sometimes when the federal  government does things,                                                               
they kind  of leave ... loopholes."   She asked whether  the same                                                               
rules that apply to regular  property owners also apply to owners                                                               
of the type of property being discussed.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1773                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JON   TILLINGHAST,   General   Counsel,   Sealaska   Corporation,                                                               
explained  that in  a  couple of  respects,  Alaska Native  Claim                                                               
Settlement  Act  property is  different  both  from other  Native                                                               
property and from the type of  property that he has at his house,                                                               
for example, or  that Representative James has at her  house.  He                                                               
elaborated:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     One, I think most responsive  to your question, is that                                                                    
     it  did come  to  the native  corporations  in sort  of                                                                    
     dribbles and drabs, and it  was very clearly subject to                                                                    
     whatever preexisting rights were out  there.  So, it is                                                                    
     a little  cloudier than most native  corporations would                                                                    
     like; it's the best  the federal government would give.                                                                    
     That's what makes it hard  for the village corporations                                                                    
     to  in   turn  give  a  warranty   deed  to  individual                                                                    
     shareholders  if they're  going to  parcel out  some of                                                                    
     their property,  because it's hard for  them to warrant                                                                    
     title   that   came   to  them   sort   of   soiled   -                                                                    
     unwarranted....                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLINGHAST   mentioned  that  SB  263   has  received  some                                                               
criticism for  being another "ANCSA-only bill,"  but offered that                                                               
the issue  ought to be  addressed via legislation because  of the                                                               
[transfer] methods  used by the  federal government.  He  went on                                                               
to say:                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     [Alaska  Native  Claims  Settlement  Act]  property  is                                                                    
     unique  in that  the subsurface  estate is  owned by  a                                                                    
     private  party  rather  than the  government,  and  the                                                                    
     courts  have  said that  it  extends  virtually to  the                                                                    
     surface,  so  it includes  sand  and  gravel.   So  you                                                                    
     create  an inevitable  conflict whenever  anybody wants                                                                    
     to  stick in  a foundation  or stick  in a  sewer pipe,                                                                    
     which you  don't [have]  in my  house with  the federal                                                                    
     government because  their subsurface estate is  oil and                                                                    
     gas and  coal - it's  the stuff that's way  down there.                                                                    
     Because  there is  an inevitable  conflict between  the                                                                    
     subsurface  owner and  the surface  owner, it's  doubly                                                                    
     important  to  keep  a   clear  line  of  communication                                                                    
     available between  the subsurface owner and  the person                                                                    
     that owns the surface now  so [that] they can sort that                                                                    
     out.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     So on the  one hand you've got  an especially important                                                                    
     reason  and need  for after-acquired  rights to  ... be                                                                    
     passed   though,   and,   yet,   you've   got   village                                                                    
     corporations  [that]  find  it very  difficult  to  use                                                                    
     warranty  deeds, which  are the  only  existing way  of                                                                    
     creating  that pipeline,  because  they  don't want  to                                                                    
     warrant  something  ...  [that  is]  unwarranted.    So                                                                    
     that's why the bill's confined to ANCSA property ....                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1889                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said  her concern is that "you  have all the                                                               
rights that you're  entitled to."  She surmised that  SB 263 will                                                               
solve the immediate problem, but  it still doesn't offer the same                                                               
benefits that other landholders have.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH   pointed  out  that   although  Sealaska                                                               
representatives  were  present  to  testify,  SB  263  is  not  a                                                               
"Sealaska bill."   It's a bill that would cover  all the regional                                                               
and village  corporations in Alaska,  he noted, adding  that they                                                               
are  all in  the  same  boat.   Congress  gave  the authority  to                                                               
village  and regional  corporations  to give  out  home sites  to                                                               
individuals, but  there are  limitations to  how big  the parcels                                                               
could  be.   For  example, in  Angoon, he  noted,  there are  729                                                               
shareholders, so  there are 729 lots  that were given out.   This                                                               
land transfer, he  remarked, is an attempt to enrich  some of the                                                               
people in  the villages  by giving  them their  own land  so they                                                               
could  build something.   But  there is  a cloud  in the  current                                                               
situation, and SB 263 is intended  to remove that cloud, not just                                                               
for Sealaska, but  for all the regional  and village corporations                                                               
in Alaska.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  asked if  the problem  stems from  the lack  of a                                                               
warranty  deed from  the federal  government, or  because of  the                                                               
penetration of the subsurface estates, or both.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH  said that it  is both.  "We're  not going                                                               
to be able  to get away from  the cloud that ...  Congress put on                                                               
it," he warned,  but if there wasn't a "split  estate" - with the                                                               
village corporations owning the  surface estates and the regional                                                               
corporations owning  the subsurface  estates - "we  wouldn't have                                                               
to be  here."  He  offered that "we're  just trying to  make sure                                                               
that, one,  our shareholders don't  break the law and,  two, that                                                               
we  do  everything  we  can   to  keep  them  from  becoming  law                                                               
breakers."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  asked whether,  in receiving the  land from                                                               
the  federal  government,  the  regional  corporations  were  not                                                               
allowed to  sell or give  away the  subsurface rights.   Are they                                                               
stuck with it like the state is?                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1991                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH   said,  "No,  we  can   sell  it;  we're                                                               
considered a private  property owner in terms of  that, and we're                                                               
allowed to sell  it, except our regional corporation  has gone on                                                               
record saying that  we will never sell ANCSA land."   In response                                                               
to a question,  he confirmed that the resources, such  as coal or                                                               
gravel, could  be used.   He noted  that the courts  have already                                                               
had to resolve a "sand and gravel issue."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that "all fee  simple lands in Alaska do not                                                               
maintain  subsurface  rights."    He asked  whether  there  is  a                                                               
statutory easement  for general subsurface  use of the  first few                                                               
feet of "all other non-ANCSA land."                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLINGHAST replied,  "Well, for  non-ANCSA land,  the stuff                                                               
that's down in the first few feet  - the sand and the gravel - is                                                               
not part of the subsurface estate.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked:  "What  about a ten-foot foundation?...  Is                                                               
that because of case law, or is there a statutory requirement?"                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. TILLINGHAST  said:   "If you  look at  your patent,  what the                                                               
federal government has reserved is  not the subsurface estate but                                                               
all  leasable and  locatable minerals,  and that  is pretty  well                                                               
defined as ... coal, and oil and gas, and that sort of thing."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG observed  that he  had always  thought that  when                                                               
ANCSA was  implemented, that was  one of the  distinctions, since                                                               
the  state didn't  grant  subsurface estates  and  there are  few                                                               
other  lands   that  were   granted  subsurface   estates  before                                                               
statehood.   "But  it's  just the  minerals  thereunder that  are                                                               
reserved for the state, not  the total subsurface rights, is that                                                               
correct?" he asked.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLINGHAST confirmed  that, adding  that such  is at  least                                                               
statutory, perhaps even constitutional.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised,  then, that ANCSA land  is more valuable                                                               
because it has total right to the subsurface estate.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLINGHAST  remarked that  the  subsurface  estate is  more                                                               
valuable in the ANCSA context because it includes more.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  said, "So, there's  not a  problem as far  as the                                                               
easements  for  some incidental  use  of  the subsurface  rights,                                                               
then, because it's not mining of or utilization of resources."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 2117                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLINGHAST said,  "Well,  that's what  we're  trying to  do                                                               
here, is to grant the individual  lot [owners] ... an easement to                                                               
stick their  foundations down without trespassing."   In response                                                               
to a question regarding quitclaim deeds, he said:                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     We're  going  to  grant  an  easement  to  the  village                                                                    
     corporation,  and then  by  virtue of  this  bill -  if                                                                    
     we're fortunate enough to have  it pass - that easement                                                                    
     that  we've granted  to  the  village corporation  will                                                                    
     pass, by  operation of this bill,  automatically to all                                                                    
     of the  people who  have bought  lots from  the village                                                                    
     corporation.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  remarked,  "That's   because  there  is  no  ...                                                               
statewide platting authority."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLINGHAST  said  that  is  correct.    In  response  to  a                                                               
question, he said  that as the subsurface  owner, Sealaska cannot                                                               
plat.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG mentioned  that typically,  only in  urban areas,                                                               
which  have  "planning  power,"  can  easements  be  granted  via                                                               
platting.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES   said  that  she  is   assuming  that  the                                                               
easements being  discussed are private easements  to the property                                                               
owner, and are not public right-of-way.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLINGHAST  said  that  is  correct.    In  response  to  a                                                               
question, he  confirmed that  the easements  would attach  to the                                                               
title and then forever transfer with the land.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  remarked that  it  is  conceivable that  someone                                                               
granted a  title in this fashion  could grant a warranty  deed to                                                               
another person,  but then the  [seller] would be  responsible for                                                               
the warranty.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2198                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH  added, "This  title, once  it's acquired,                                                               
passes to  whoever buys it; for  instance, if I sold  my property                                                               
in Angoon to you, then you would  be subject to that, and I'm not                                                               
estopped, by the  way, from selling it to a  non-Native or a non-                                                               
shareholder.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  remarked, "If  you've  been  granted fee  simple                                                               
title, you're not estopped, under ANCSA."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH clarified,  "Even now,  even with  what I                                                               
got from the village corporation, I can sell it."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked, "You could quitclaim it."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH  concurred, adding  that while this  is an                                                               
"Alaska Native Claims Settlement  Act specific title," it doesn't                                                               
prevent him from selling the property to whomever he wished.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG pointed  out  that "you  could  grant a  warranty                                                               
deed, if you so desired to  defend it and buy the title insurance                                                               
to back it up."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH agreed.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG offered,  however,  that "We  want  to marry  the                                                               
easements  with the  existing quitclaim  deeds  that you  already                                                               
[have] so they're perfected."                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  asked:  "Can  you lien the  property, then,                                                               
if you  build a  house or  whatever?  Can  you do  a lien  to the                                                               
bank, and would they take a quitclaim deed as security?"                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG said, "Sure."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH said  that  he is  sure  it is  possible,                                                               
especially if the house is worth anything.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted,  "The question here is whether  we have the                                                               
easement  to  use  ...  a  modicum  of  subsurface  right."    He                                                               
reiterated that one could always  grant a warranty deed if he/she                                                               
is willing to back it up.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2268                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ moved  to report  CSSB 263(RLS)  out of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
zero fiscal  note.  There  being no objection, CSSB  263(RLS) was                                                               
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB 271 - CAP ON AVIATION ACCIDENT PUNITIVE DAMAGES                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2279                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  next order of  business would                                                               
be HOUSE BILL  NO. 271, "An Act relating to  recovery of punitive                                                               
damages resulting  from an aviation  accident; and  providing for                                                               
an  effective date."    [Before the  committee  was the  proposed                                                               
committee substitute (CS) for HB  271, version 22-LS0741\L, Ford,                                                               
4/19/02, which was adopted as a work draft on 4/19/02.]                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  noted that  although  he  had considered  making                                                               
alterations to Version  L, he had instead come  to the conclusion                                                               
that it  would be better  to create a separate  bill encompassing                                                               
his ideas.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2321                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  moved  to report  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS)  for HB 271, version  22-LS0741\L, Ford, 4/19/02,                                                               
out  of   committee  with  individual  recommendations   and  the                                                               
accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2331                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.  He said:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     It  just seems  to me  that we're  tightening some  the                                                                    
     nuts, when there are some  bigger problems and we could                                                                    
     be fixing some of the bigger  problems.  I have not had                                                                    
     the chance  to study this  in the same detail  you have                                                                    
     or ...  [Representative Halcro  has], but  I do  have a                                                                    
     letter    from   the    Division   of    Insurance   to                                                                    
     Representative  Halcro dated  February  2, 2001,  which                                                                    
     ... made  me aware  of a number  of options  that we're                                                                    
     not  using here....   We're  trying to  drive down  the                                                                    
     cost of  insurance for air carriers  solely through one                                                                    
     mechanism, and there's  other mechanisms available, and                                                                    
     I am  really frustrated  by the lack  of responsiveness                                                                    
     from the  insurance ... [industry]  when it  comes time                                                                    
     (indisc.) you're  asking for  a quantifiable  effect of                                                                    
     what we're doing here....                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     It  seems  to  me  that   an  actuary  could  take  the                                                                    
     variables we're  changing and come  up with  the impact                                                                    
     on rates, and  I didn't receive those  responses.  Now,                                                                    
     I'm not averse to  doing something with punitive damage                                                                    
     awards; I  don't think  what we're  doing here  is much                                                                    
     more   than   placating   people  who   aren't   really                                                                    
     threatened  by these  punitive damages,  but I  look at                                                                    
     options currently  available but  not used in  Alaska -                                                                    
     things  like risk  purchase  groups, state-based  joint                                                                    
     underwriting,   reciprocal  insurers,   risk  retention                                                                    
     groups - things that might require some ...                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG interjected, noting  that those alternatives would                                                               
cost money.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ remarked  that although  that might  be                                                               
true, one  should think of  the cost to  the people of  Alaska if                                                               
the state winds up without any air carriers.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 02-54, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2389                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ warned that the  cost would be huge; the                                                               
costs of goods and services and  the cost of traveling around the                                                               
state would all be driven up.  He continued:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     The government ...  ought to be helping  people do what                                                                    
     they  can't do  individually, and  this is  one of  the                                                                    
     instances where we  can step in and help  out.  There's                                                                    
     no  market assistance  plan, [no]  ... joint  insurance                                                                    
     arrangement;  we  didn't  have  any  of  this  kind  of                                                                    
     response.  And  ... I keep coming back  to, nobody told                                                                    
     me how what  we're doing is measurably  going to affect                                                                    
     the problem.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 2355                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTOPHER  KNIGHT,  Staff   to  Representative  Andrew  Halcro,                                                               
Alaska  State  Legislature,  spoke on  behalf  of  Representative                                                               
Halcro, chair of the subcommittee  on aviation insurance and vice                                                               
chair of the  House Labor and Commerce  Standing Committee, which                                                               
sponsored HB  271.  He said  that the subcommittee had  looked at                                                               
many different options.  He stated:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Many of  those options  require some  appropriations of                                                                    
     [$10 million  to $20  million to  $35 million]  just to                                                                    
     get  started -  seed  money as  we say  -  and in  some                                                                    
     cases,  larger airliners  were  against those  options,                                                                    
     almost as  if we  were going  to subsidize  the smaller                                                                    
     air carriers.   This is only one option.   I think what                                                                    
     you're  bringing  up  are some  of  the  other  options                                                                    
     concerning "safety-related."   ...  This  is one option                                                                    
     that we'd  like to push  forward.  There's a  number of                                                                    
     options....                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     A couple of  other areas are the  [Five Star] Medallion                                                                    
     Program, implementing that  somehow under the statutes,                                                                    
     ... trying  to figure  out ... how  to get  ... death-,                                                                    
     [accident-],   and  safety-related   issues  into   the                                                                    
     statutes  somehow, to  drive  insurance rates  down....                                                                    
     Another option  would be to  somehow get a fix  on what                                                                    
     your actual  coverage is as  far as liabilities  - seat                                                                    
     coverage.    And   I  think  we  just   worked  up  ...                                                                    
     potentially another bill that  may have to come forward                                                                    
     next year,  but would  kind of  try to  clarify, within                                                                    
     statute, what those seat limits would be.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. KNIGHT continued:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     So, there's  a number  of different options  we've been                                                                    
     working on.   I wish I  could say I was  here with this                                                                    
     huge  omnibus  piece   of  legislation  that  addressed                                                                    
     safety,   addressed  policy   limits,  addressed   tort                                                                    
     reform,  but I  don't  have that  piece of  legislation                                                                    
     here today.   I've just  got a small portion  of it....                                                                    
     And to  answer your other question  about empirical ...                                                                    
     evidence   ...,  Bob   Lohr   [Director,  Division   of                                                                    
     Insurance]   testified  specifically   ...  that   this                                                                    
     legislation will attract  more insurance companies into                                                                    
     the state of Alaska.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     And it's  going to have  a direct benefit to  the state                                                                    
     of Alaska air  carriers; it's going to  allow people to                                                                    
     stay in  business.   And I  think that's  pretty strong                                                                    
     evidence,   when  you   have   the  division   director                                                                    
     basically supporting a piece  of legislation that deals                                                                    
     with  torts, saying  that  this is  going  to help  the                                                                    
     process.   I  wish  I had  the  numbers, the  actuarial                                                                    
     numbers, [that]  say this  is going to  lower it  by 10                                                                    
     percent or it's  going to maintain it at  such and such                                                                    
     - 5 percent - but I don't have those numbers.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2277                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     It just frankly  is not credible to me  that an actuary                                                                    
     can't tell  you the difference  in rates based  on this                                                                    
     change in variables....   What this is, is  a change in                                                                    
     the level  of risk  that the ...  carriers have,  and I                                                                    
     don't  know  if  there's  any   actuaries  out  in  the                                                                    
     audience -  I think  there's one that  I know  of who's                                                                    
     got training - ... [but] it  would seem to me that this                                                                    
     is a  variable you plug into  a formula and you  get an                                                                    
     answer.  And  ... the reluctance to  provide the answer                                                                    
     suggests  to me  that ...  it doesn't  have a  very big                                                                    
     effect for the  air carriers but might  somehow lead to                                                                    
     a windfall profit for the insurance companies.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     And  ...  that's  my  suspicion  -  I  don't  have  any                                                                    
     evidence for it  - but that'd be my guess....   And I'd                                                                    
     like  to hear  why  I'm  wrong; I  don't  want to  cast                                                                    
     aspersions unnecessarily,  but I'm  being told  to just                                                                    
     swallow whole hog the fact  that just trimming down the                                                                    
     amount of  punitive damages  is going  to lead  to this                                                                    
     great  savings in  the state  of  Alaska, and  nobody's                                                                    
     shown me  any numbers.  I  mean, I don't even  know how                                                                    
     we arrived  at these numbers  that are here  as opposed                                                                    
     to the  numbers that were  already there as  opposed to                                                                    
     another  set of  numbers;  it's  just numbers  randomly                                                                    
     chosen,  or magically  going to  impact the  ability of                                                                    
     air carriers to exist in the  state.  So prove it to me                                                                    
     - I  got ...  Missouri people in  my background  - just                                                                    
     show me.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. KNIGHT replied that he  would take Representative Berkowitz's                                                               
request  for  actuarial  documentation   to  some  of  the  major                                                               
insurance  companies, and  provide any  forthcoming responses  to                                                               
Representative Berkowitz.   He noted that he  has posed [similar]                                                               
questions  to a  couple of  insurance companies  already, one  of                                                               
them being American  International Group, Inc. (AIG),  and he was                                                               
hoping to  get a response  soon.   He mentioned that  although HB                                                               
271  was introduced  last  year, work  on  this legislation  only                                                               
started up again a couple of  weeks ago and, thus, he doesn't yet                                                               
have as much information for the  committee as he would like.  He                                                               
added:  "I  think you've heard overwhelming  testimony from every                                                               
air carrier  - almost -  in the state  that says, 'Hey,  look it,                                                               
this is going to help.'"                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2179                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     What  I hear  from  those  air carriers  is  a note  of                                                                    
     desperation, like, "Hey, do something  now, and this is                                                                    
     the  only thing  that's in  front  of us,  and [so]  do                                                                    
     this."  And,  like I said, I'm not ...  averse to doing                                                                    
     this,  but it  just seems  to me  that we're  not doing                                                                    
     everything we  can do, we're not  addressing this thing                                                                    
     comprehensively, and  I'm getting  a lot of  stall from                                                                    
     the insurance  companies instead of some  real help for                                                                    
     the air carriers.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH commented  that although  he'd appreciate                                                               
the  additional  information  that  Representative  Berkowitz  is                                                               
seeking, he views HB 271 as just  one of the small steps that can                                                               
be  taken at  this  time.   He remarked  that  he is  comfortable                                                               
taking this  small step, but  acknowledged that there is  more to                                                               
be done,  perhaps along the  lines of  Representative Berkowitz's                                                               
suggestions.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. KNIGHT indicated that Representative  Halcro would be working                                                               
on this  issue further, and  mentioned the [Five  Star] Medallion                                                               
Program as  being a good program  that will reduce the  number of                                                               
accidents.   He  noted that  further revisions  to the  insurance                                                               
statutes would also help the situation.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned he would  like to have some mechanism in                                                               
place that will further the  efforts of the [Five Star] Medallion                                                               
Program.   He remarked, however,  that, "We're  having difficulty                                                               
marrying  the program  for maintenance,  safety training,  and so                                                               
forth   into  an   actuarially  acceptable   type  of   insurance                                                               
underwriting  situation; it's  very difficult  to mandate  to the                                                               
underwriters  exactly  what ...  [is  needed]."   Chair  Rokeberg                                                               
noted that Representative Andrew Halcro was present.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2018                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  restated her motion to  report the proposed                                                               
committee substitute (CS) for HB  271, version 22-LS0741\L, Ford,                                                               
4/19/02,  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the accompanying  fiscal notes.   There being no  objection, CSHB                                                               
271(JUD)  was   reported  from   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:13 p.m. to 2:14 p.m.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SB 37 - PHYSICIAN NEGOTIATIONS WITH HEALTH INSURE                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2000                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  next order of  business would                                                               
be  CS  FOR  SENATE  BILL   NO.  37(FIN),  "An  Act  relating  to                                                               
collective  negotiation  by   competing  physicians  with  health                                                               
benefit  plans,   to  health  benefit  plan   contracts,  to  the                                                               
application of  antitrust laws to agreements  involving providers                                                               
and groups of providers affected  by collective negotiations, and                                                               
to the effect of the  collective negotiation provisions on health                                                               
care providers."  [Before the  committee was HCS CSSB 37(L&C), as                                                               
amended on 4/10/02.]                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1970                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL   moved  to  adopt  the   proposed  House                                                               
committee  substitute  (HCS)  for  SB  37,  version  22-LS0323\U,                                                               
Bannister, 4/18/02, as a work draft.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1968                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1956                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HEATHER  M. NOBREGA,  Staff  to  Representative Norman  Rokeberg,                                                               
House  Judiciary Standing  Committee,  Alaska State  Legislature,                                                               
explained that Version U incorporates  the two amendments made at                                                               
the previous  hearing on SB  37.  One amendment  deleted multiple                                                               
employer welfare  arrangements (MEWAs), and the  other amendment,                                                               
which was  suggested by the  [Alaska] Nurses  Association (AaNA),                                                               
pertained to providers  that are not physicians.   She noted that                                                               
in  incorporating the  second amendment,  an error  was made  and                                                               
thus language which now reads  "not physicians" should be changed                                                               
to read "non-physicians.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  noted that the language  which needs to                                                               
be  changed is  located on  page 2,  lines 13  and 15.   He  then                                                               
indicated that he  no longer objected to the  adoption of Version                                                               
U as a work draft.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1911                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG,   after  noting  that  there   were  no  further                                                               
objections, announced that Version U was before the committee.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1890                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made  a motion to adopt  Amendment 1, on                                                               
page  2, lines  13 and  15,  delete "not  physicians" and  insert                                                               
"non-physicians".   There  being  no objection,  Amendment 1  was                                                               
adopted.   He  then  indicated  that he  had  more amendments  to                                                               
offer.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:17 p.m. to 2:18 p.m.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1853                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  made a  motion to adopt  [Amendment 2],                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     ADD NEW SECTION TO READ:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     "Sec.3.      AS    23.50.010,   23.50.020,   23.50.030,                                                                    
     23.50.040, 23.50.099; and  AS 45.50.572(k) are repealed                                                                    
     July 1, 2006.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1847                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  explained  that  [Amendment  2]  would                                                               
sunset the entire legislation, under  the theory that after it is                                                               
seen how well  the provisions of SB 37 work,  the legislature can                                                               
revisit the issue to determine whether  to extend the sunset.  He                                                               
added that  this concept falls  under the "less  legislation, the                                                               
better" theory.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1802                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR PETE KELLY, Alaska State  Legislature, sponsor, said that                                                               
he did not like Amendment 2.  He elaborated:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Because  of  the  voluntary nature  of  this,  and  the                                                                    
     timeframe it  would take  to promulgate  regulations, I                                                                    
     don't think ... we'll  ever get to where Representative                                                                    
     Berkowitz wished to get with  this:  finding out to see                                                                    
     ... if  it works  or not.   The fact  is, ...  when you                                                                    
     have  [that]  the  attorney   general  can  kill  these                                                                    
     negotiations at  any time, the insurance  companies can                                                                    
     kill  the  negotiations at  any  time,  or the  doctors                                                                    
     themselves can  do it  at any  time, [then]  anyone who                                                                    
     wants to  can just hold out  for a few years,  the bill                                                                    
     sunsets, and then  we never get to it.   And because of                                                                    
     the voluntary  nature, I don't think  it represents any                                                                    
     kind of threat to begin with.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1753                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representative  Berkowitz voted for                                                               
Amendment  2.     Representatives  James,  Coghill,   Meyer,  and                                                               
Rokeberg voted  against it.   Therefore, Amendment 2 failed  by a                                                               
vote of 1-4.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1743                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  3,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     PAGE 5, LINE 9                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     "and completing  the period for comment  and review for                                                                    
     interested parties  required by  this subsection.   The                                                                    
     review  of the  contract by  the attorney  general must                                                                    
     allow  adequate   time  for   comment  and   review  by                                                                    
     interested parties  and must  include a  review whether                                                                    
     the contract would harm consumers  or providers who are                                                                    
     not physicians"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1740                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that  Amendment 3 would ensure                                                               
better public  process by  providing for  a comment  [and review]                                                               
period for interested parties.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KELLY said he objects to Amendment 3.  He elaborated:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     It's  private  negotiation between  private  companies.                                                                    
     There are  things that  we do even  at the  state level                                                                    
     where all  the information is  not laid out  for public                                                                    
     access.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked for clarification.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ,  in defense  of Amendment 3,  said that                                                               
it would  ensure that  the attorney  general doesn't  take action                                                               
before the comment period has elapsed.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  remarked that Amendment 3  is vague, specifically                                                               
the words, "allow an adequate time for comment".                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KELLY  noted   that  the  amount  of   time  needed  for                                                               
negotiations  between  companies  is quite  different  than  what                                                               
would be needed for the promulgation of regulations.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG said he tended  to favor Amendment 3, but remarked                                                               
that it is poorly drafted.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  said  he  would  accept  a  clarifying                                                               
amendment to Amendment 3.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG declined to offer such.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1679                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Berkowitz  and                                                               
Rokeberg voted for Amendment 3.   Representatives James, Coghill,                                                               
and Meyer voted  against it.  Therefore, Amendment 3  failed by a                                                               
vote of 2-3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1660                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  4,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, Line 20 add new subsection:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
    "individual   physician   members    covered   in   the                                                                     
    collective    negotiations    shall   accept    without                                                                     
     qualification Medicare patients."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1605                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ recalled  from previous  testimony that                                                               
physicians  wanted to  ensure that  patients  were protected  and                                                               
that  everyone receive  adequate  health care.    He stated  that                                                               
Amendment   4  "would   just  enshrine,   in  legislation,   that                                                               
sentiment,"  adding   that  [Amendment  4]  would   also  have  a                                                               
favorable impact on the state's fiscal situation.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KELLY said,  "This seems quite a bit out  of the scope of                                                               
the bill; I  don't think this is  the time or the  place to begin                                                               
requiring physicians to take on patients here."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  queried, "But aren't we  granting them additional                                                               
rights  to bargain?"    He remarked,  "I  guess this  amendment's                                                               
requesting them to give something back."                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she objects  to Amendment 4 because she                                                               
does not  wish to restrict physicians'  choices regarding whether                                                               
or not  to serve Medicare  patients.  She  remarked, nonetheless,                                                               
that Medicare is the worst possible insurance people could have.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  mentioned that the  "phantom insurance  tax" just                                                               
perpetuates "that."  "What we need  to do is destroy Medicare and                                                               
rebuild it from its ashes," he added.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said that  the danger of  not [adopting                                                               
Amendment 4] is that "these  groups" would be allowed to "cherry-                                                               
pick"  patients, which  would  leave the  other  physicians in  a                                                               
given community  in a worse  position.   He remarked that  such a                                                               
situation would be unfair from  a bargaining perspective and from                                                               
an economic perspective, and would  lead to degraded health care.                                                               
"People  want to  come to  the  legislature for  a benefit,  then                                                               
they've got  to do something  to help the  state out of  the bind                                                               
that we're in," he added.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES opined  that  something should  be done  to                                                               
ensure that Medicare is not always the first payor.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  said, "I certainly  agree that we need  to reform                                                               
Medicare."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1493                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  DONNY OLSON,  Alaska State  Legislature, said  he agrees                                                               
that "there  are battles we  can get  into and battles  we should                                                               
not get  into, but reforming Medicare  is not one of  the battles                                                               
that we have the resources to go and do at this point."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1450                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Berkowitz  and                                                               
Kookesh voted  for Amendment 4.   Representatives James, Coghill,                                                               
Meyer, and  Rokeberg voted  against it.   Therefore,  Amendment 4                                                               
failed by a vote of 2-4.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR OLSON  remarked that he  has taken  an interest in  SB 37                                                               
because it could  affect him and the private practice  that he is                                                               
involved with in Nome.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG closed public testimony on SB 37.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1398                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES   moved  to   report  the   proposed  House                                                               
committee  substitute  (HCS)  for  SB  37,  version  22-LS0323\U,                                                               
Bannister, 4/18/02, as amended,  out of committee with individual                                                               
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1383                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1367                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representatives Coghill,  Meyer,                                                               
James, and Rokeberg voted to report HCS for SB 37, version 22-                                                                  
LS0323\U,  Bannister,   4/18/02,  as  amended,   from  committee.                                                               
Representatives   Berkowitz  and   Kookesh   voted  against   it.                                                               
Therefore,  HCS  CSSB  37(JUD)  was reported  out  of  the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:31 p.m. to 2:32 p.m.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 140 - PLACE GHB IN SCHEDULE IA                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
[Contains reference to HB 297.]                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1355                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  next order of  business would                                                               
be   HOUSE   BILL  NO.   140,   "An   Act  relating   to   gamma-                                                               
Hydroxybutyrate."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 1335                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SHARALYN  "SUE" WRIGHT,  Staff to  Representative Mike  Chenault,                                                               
Alaska  State Legislature,  offered on  behalf of  Representative                                                               
Chenault, sponsor,  that HB 140 would  move gamma-Hydroxybutyrate                                                               
(GHB)  from schedule  IVA  to schedule  IA in  AS  11.71; such  a                                                               
change  would   increase  the   penalties  for   possessing  GHB.                                                               
[Reclassifying] GHB,  commonly know as  the date rape  drug, will                                                               
conform to  the federal schedules  for this drug.   She explained                                                               
that statewide,  hospitals and  schools have  seen an  upsurge in                                                               
the use of  GHB, which is used to incapacitate  a person during a                                                               
sexual  encounter such  that he/she  cannot  remember the  event.                                                               
She noted  that GHB has only  one legitimate use, that  being for                                                               
the treatment  of narcolepsy.   She mentioned  that there  is "an                                                               
orphan  medical company"  in Duluth,  Minnesota  that is  seeking                                                               
approval from  the Food  and Drug  Administration (FDA)  for such                                                               
use of  GHB, although  none of  the doctors  from the  Kenai area                                                               
with whom she spoke use GHB for any purpose.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER mentioned that  he has legislation pending -                                                               
HB  297 -  that  would make  the  use  of drugs  such  as GHB  an                                                               
aggravating factor  in sentencing.   In comparison,  he remarked,                                                               
HB 140 would make mere possession of GHB a crime.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT reiterated that HB  140 simply moves GHB from schedule                                                               
IVA  to schedule  IA, and  that  this change  would increase  the                                                               
penalties  and  bring Alaska's  schedules  in  line with  federal                                                               
schedules.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  asked why HB  140 only addresses  GHB, when                                                               
other "date rape drugs" are also being used.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT indicated that because a  physician and a nurse in the                                                               
sponsor's  district "were  seeing [GHB]  being used"  and because                                                               
currently there is no [quick]  test that can confirm the presence                                                               
of GHB  in a  person's bloodstream,  GHB became  the focus  of HB                                                               
140.   She relayed that  according to the federal  drug schedule,                                                               
possession  of GHB  is  treated much  more  seriously than  other                                                               
similarly  used drugs;  HB 140  is  an attempt  to conform  state                                                               
schedules to federal schedules.   She acknowledged, however, that                                                               
there  are  a  lot  of  other drugs  -  the  "codeines"  and  the                                                               
"morphines" - that are being used for the same purpose as GHB.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER mentioned that he  would like to see the use                                                               
of other drugs such as rohypnol included in HB 140.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1084                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WRIGHT noted  that Legislative  Legal and  Research Services                                                               
has already cautioned her against  adding another drug to HB 140;                                                               
one drug at a time, one issue at a time, was the advice given.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  reiterated that  he would  like see  HB 140                                                               
address more than just GHB.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned  that issues regarding various                                                               
"date rape" drugs and conforming  state drug schedules to federal                                                               
drug  schedules   have  already  been  discussed   by  the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee in previous years.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG confirmed  that  the committee  is very  familiar                                                               
with these issues.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT recounted  that last fall at  "Ninilchik" high school,                                                               
the ingredients for GHB were  stolen, but unfortunately, when the                                                               
kids that  stole the  ingredients were  caught, nothing  could be                                                               
done because  the kids had  not yet  combined them to  create the                                                               
drug itself.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER pondered  whether the legislation pertaining                                                               
to  aggravating factors  would have  the same  effect as  HB 140,                                                               
and, thus, could be used instead.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WRIGHT  acknowledged  Representative  Meyer's  point.    She                                                               
explained that  when HB  140 was  originally drafted,  that issue                                                               
had not been considered; at that  time, the sponsor had been made                                                               
aware of  the problem with  GHB at  the hospital and  at "Nikiski                                                               
High",  and HB  140 in  its  present form  was the  result.   She                                                               
offered  that if  HB 140  could be  adopted this  year, something                                                               
further could be done next year to address [other drugs].                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   MEYER  again   noted  that   HB  140   addresses                                                               
possession of GHB, not just the use of it.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  referred to the analysis  accompanying the fiscal                                                               
note, which said HB 140 "would  move the penalty up from either a                                                               
Class  B felony  or Class  C felony  to a  Class A  felony or  an                                                               
unclassified  felony."   He remarked  that this  could result  in                                                               
putting "somebody  away for life" for  using GHB.  He  asked what                                                               
the rationale is  for such [a penalty].  He  also asked about the                                                               
lengths  of sentences  under current  penalties versus  under the                                                               
proposed penalty.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0839                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT  said that she  did not  know "what the  current years                                                               
are,"  nor what  the  "discretion  of a  judge  would  be."   She                                                               
offered instead:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     There  is  no  other  use   for  this  drug  except  to                                                                    
     incapacitate a  person for one  reason or  another, and                                                                    
     usually those  reasons are  [of] no  good avail  to the                                                                    
     victim, and the victim  oftentimes does not recall what                                                                    
     has happened to him or her during the time she's been                                                                      
     under the influence of that drug.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that  he understood the severity of                                                               
the problem.   He  noted, however, that  according to  [Issue No.                                                               
243] of the  National Institute of Justice  Journal [published by                                                             
the National  Institute of  Justice], "school-based  surveys seem                                                               
to  suggest  that  rohypnol and  GHB  are  consumed  voluntarily,                                                               
perhaps  increasingly  so."    There   is  a  difference  between                                                               
voluntary  consumption  of  a  drug and  using  it  to  victimize                                                               
somebody, he remarked.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT agreed,  but remarked, "putting a Coca Cola  down at a                                                               
party and  having somebody put  that drug  in your drink,  how do                                                               
you ... determine whether someone  takes that drug voluntarily or                                                               
... it was given to them in  a malicious manner."  The sad aspect                                                               
of  GHB, she  said, is  that  no one  remembers, afterward,  what                                                               
actually happened:   "You  don't remember  when you've  taken it,                                                               
you don't  remember how you've  gotten it."   This is not  a drug                                                               
that is  generally used  voluntarily.   When this  drug surfaces,                                                               
98.9 percent of the time it  is involved in rape cases, sometimes                                                               
of girls as young as 7 or 8 years old.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES asked,  "If  it's  taken voluntarily,  that                                                               
makes it okay?"                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0623                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  said no,  it doesn't,  not if "we  put it  on the                                                               
schedule."   In response  to a  question, Chair  Rokeberg posited                                                               
that if  both HB 140  and HB  297, which pertains  to aggravating                                                               
factors, pass, a  person who uses GHB to facilitate  a rape would                                                               
be subject  to the penalties pertaining  to rape, to use  of GHB,                                                               
and to possession of GHB.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  concurred  that  under  HB  140,  even                                                               
taking GHB  voluntarily could  subject someone  to a  long prison                                                               
sentence.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  surmised  that  the class  of  felony  a                                                               
person was subject to would depend on the "type of use."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WRIGHT  agreed,  indicating  that   it  would  depend  on  a                                                               
combination  of  "type  of  use"  and "a  judgment  call  by  the                                                               
prosecutor."   She  reiterated  that one  of  the most  important                                                               
aspects of  HB 140  is that  state drug  schedules would  come in                                                               
line with the federal drug  schedules, which say that consumption                                                               
of GHB in any form,  without a doctor's prescription, is illegal.                                                               
She remarked  that it doesn't make  sense for anyone to  take GHB                                                               
voluntarily and then turn himself/herself in for prosecution.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that  "it's very difficult to                                                               
prove after the fact."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT reiterated  that currently, no test  exists that could                                                               
immediately show the  presence of GHB; serum has to  be drawn and                                                               
sent outside  [the state] to  determine if  GHB is present.   She                                                               
added that GHB is metabolized  very fast and therefore tests must                                                               
be conducted  within five or  six hours of ingestion;  usually by                                                               
the time a person who has  been drugged wakes up, that time frame                                                               
has elapsed.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0357                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DEB  BLIZZARD, R.N.,  testified via  teleconference, noting  that                                                               
she  is a  certified  emergency nurse  and sexual-assault  nurse-                                                               
examiner.  She  said that in the  22 years she has  been a nurse,                                                               
she has never  seen a drug that  scares her as much as  GHB.  She                                                               
mentioned  that  GHB  is  very  easily made,  with  some  of  the                                                               
ingredients being  found in Drano, floor  strippers, and acetone.                                                               
The compounds, when mixed together, have  "a ph of 8 to 9," which                                                               
gets  kids high,  just as  if  they'd had  five or  six shots  of                                                               
alcohol, she  explained.  One  of the problems, however,  is that                                                               
GHB affects  everyone differently;  when used in  sexual assault,                                                               
it incapacitates  a person and  leaves him/her with no  memory of                                                               
what has happened.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLIZZARD noted  that in "doing classes"  for ENCARE emergency                                                               
nurses    (Emergency    Nurses   Cancelling    Alcohol    Related                                                               
Emergencies),  the   EMS  symposium,  and  the   critical  nurses                                                               
symposium,  she has  come to  realize that  the use  of GHB  is a                                                               
statewide problem.   She relayed that  in her area, at  least one                                                               
or two people a week come  in with GHB overdoses."  She explained                                                               
that in  February of 2000,  President Clinton  passed legislation                                                               
making  GHB a  schedule  [IA] drug  and  named [the  legislation]                                                               
after  two girls  who died  after  having GHB  poured into  their                                                               
drinks.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER asked  how [GHB]  differs from  other "date                                                               
rape" drugs.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLIZZARD  explained that  GHB occurs  naturally in  the human                                                               
body, and this  makes it very difficult to detect.   In addition,                                                               
GHB can  be expelled through  the respiratory and  urinary tracts                                                               
within  three to  four  hours, whereas  with  rohypnol, it  takes                                                               
about 72  hours to expel.   She noted that  in order to  test for                                                               
GHB, specimens  must be  sent outside of  Alaska and  the results                                                               
are  not available  for three  to four  days.   In response  to a                                                               
question, she  said that some  kids use  GHB "just to  get high";                                                               
again, because GHB affects people  differently, although one shot                                                               
might simply  get one  person high,  another person  might become                                                               
incapacitated,  and   yet  another   person  could  die   due  to                                                               
respiratory depression.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0057                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JULIA P.  GRIMES, Lieutenant, Division of  Alaska State Troopers,                                                               
Department of  Public Safety (DPS), testified  via teleconference                                                               
and  said that  in addition  to the  date rape  problem, the  DPS                                                               
recognizes  that GHB  is extremely  dangerous and  is being  used                                                               
voluntarily by many teenagers and even some younger children.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 02-55, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT GRIMES  relayed that  club parties, rave  parties, and                                                               
non-alcoholic dance  clubs have  appeared in Anchorage  and other                                                               
parts of  the state;  these places/events  are the  perfect place                                                               
for  this type  of  drug:   it  is colorless,  it  can be  easily                                                               
carried  in an  innocent-looking  container, and  it is  actually                                                               
sold in these environments.  It is  sold by the capsule or by the                                                               
dose, and, as  indicated by Ms. Blizzard, it is  a very dangerous                                                               
drug.     Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate  is  a  central   nervous  system                                                               
depressant,  and  has  a  synergistic   affect  when  mixed  with                                                               
alcohol,  marijuana, or  any other  type of  depressant; GHB  has                                                               
caused many deaths nationwide, and  the number of these deaths is                                                               
increasing  each year.   Thus  there are  two sides  to GHB  use:                                                               
one, it is being used to  facilitate sexual assault, and, two, it                                                               
is a dangerous substance to begin  with.  She concluded by saying                                                               
that  the DPS  does  not  have a  problem  with  moving GHB  from                                                               
schedule IVA to schedule IA.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  asked whether, when  charging an  individual, the                                                               
DPS makes a  distinction between schedule IVA  drugs and schedule                                                               
IA  drugs.   "Does it  have to  be under  misconduct involving  a                                                               
controlled substance," he also asked.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT  GRIMES  said  that  under  the  misconduct  involving                                                               
controlled substance  statutes, each  schedule of drug  is broken                                                               
up statutorily,  with the more  dangerous drug  being categorized                                                               
in certain  statutes with  the higher penalty.   The  schedule IA                                                               
drugs, which are considered the  most dangerous, are the opiates,                                                               
heroin, morphine,  Dilaudud, and  natural and  synthetic opiates,                                                               
to name  a few.   The schedules then go  up in number  - schedule                                                               
IIA,  IIIA,  IVA,  VA,  and  VIA -  but  down  in  dangerousness.                                                               
Depending  on the  substance  that a  person is  found  to be  in                                                               
possession  of or  delivering or  manufacturing, the  DPS charges                                                               
according  to  wherever that  substance  lies  in statute.    She                                                               
confirmed  that the  DPS uses  misconduct involving  a controlled                                                               
substance  as the  basis for  the charge,  in whatever  degree is                                                               
appropriate for the substance [and amount] in question.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0327                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT GRIMES  noted, however,  that the  DPS does  not often                                                               
charge people  with possession based on  that possession's "being                                                               
in their  blood"; possession charges  usually stem from  a person                                                               
being caught  with a  substance in  his/her pocket,  for example.                                                               
The former  is rare; it has  happened, and it can  be prosecuted,                                                               
but it is  rarely done, since law enforcement has  only the blood                                                               
test as evidence.  In response  to a question, she indicated that                                                               
the degree of the charge  depends upon several factors, including                                                               
the  amount of  the substance,  the  age of  those involved,  the                                                               
location  involved,  and  what activity  is  actually  occurring,                                                               
whether   it  is   possession,   delivering,  manufacturing,   or                                                               
possession   with  the   intent   to   manufacture  or   deliver.                                                               
Currently,  for example  if a  person is  simply found  to be  in                                                               
possession of  a small amount of  a schedule IVA drug,  he/she is                                                               
generally   charged  with   misconduct  involving   a  controlled                                                               
substance in  the fifth degree,  which is a class  A misdemeanor.                                                               
She also indicated that misconduct  involving a schedule IVA drug                                                               
could be  charged as  fourth and  third degree  crimes, depending                                                               
upon the aforementioned factors.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  asked whether GHB  is usually measured  in grams,                                                               
and whether it is usually in liquid form.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT GRIMES  surmised that  GHB could probably  be measured                                                               
in either grams  or ounces.  She also surmised  that with passage                                                               
of  HB 140,  possession  of  any amount  of  GHB  would become  a                                                               
felony.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  noted  that depending  upon  the  circumstances,                                                               
misconduct involving a  schedule IVA drug could be  charged as an                                                               
unclassified felony.   He asked what the minimum  sentence is for                                                               
an unclassified felony.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT GRIMES said  she believes the minimum  sentence is ten                                                               
years, but acknowledged that she may be incorrect.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked whether  the  Alaska  State Troopers  have                                                               
prosecuted any "GHB cases."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LIEUTENANT  GRIMES said  they have  not  had any  cases in  which                                                               
people were  in possession of  GHB, although there might  be some                                                               
sexual assault cases in which GHB  was used or suspected of being                                                               
used.  She remarked  that GHB is an elusive type  of drug in that                                                               
by the  time "we ... find  out about it, it's  possible that it's                                                               
either out  of the person's system  or we don't have  a legal way                                                               
to obtain a sample."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0660                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
LINDA  WILSON, Deputy  Director,  Public  Defender Agency  (PDA),                                                               
Department of Administration, testified  via teleconference.  She                                                               
said first  that the PDA opposes  HB 140.  She  remarked that GHB                                                               
has been a schedule IVA substance  since 1997, and that Alaska is                                                               
ahead of many other states that  have not yet scheduled GHB.  She                                                               
went on to say:                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     When this drug  became a schedule [IVA],  it joined two                                                                    
     other  drugs that  were added  to that  schedule around                                                                    
     the  same time,  and  those have  also been  mentioned.                                                                    
     One  is a  'ruffie' drug  [flunitrazapam or  rohypnol],                                                                    
     and  then the  other  one  that came  in  last year  is                                                                    
     ketamine hydrochloride.  Those  three are often grouped                                                                    
     together.  The penalties  for these, for possession and                                                                    
     delivery for this particular drug,  as it is now, [fit]                                                                    
     in with the other drugs  currently in schedule IVA.  It                                                                    
     should  remain   there.    The  penalties   for  simple                                                                    
     possession of a  small amount of this drug  would be [a                                                                    
     class]  A  misdemeanor  under the  current  scheme;  it                                                                    
     would  be misconduct  involving a  controlled substance                                                                    
     in the  fifth degree, as  mentioned.  Depending  on the                                                                    
     [delivery]  -  ...  whom  the   delivery  is  made  to,                                                                    
     possession  with intent  to  deliver  a larger  amount,                                                                    
     whether it's near a school -  it can go up to a [class]                                                                    
     B felony currently,  as ... with those  other two drugs                                                                    
     I've mentioned that are grouped together....                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     There are  sort of three  primary abuses of  this drug,                                                                    
     and Ms.  Wright ... said  she can't imagine  that there                                                                    
     was  any  other  use  for   this  drug  other  than  to                                                                    
     facilitate  a   sexual  assault;  I  think   ...  there                                                                    
     certainly has  been testimony to the  contrary to that.                                                                    
     This  drug is  used recreationally;  the three  primary                                                                    
     uses,  or abuses,  of  this drug  are  by young  adults                                                                    
     recreationally  -  at  parties, at  clubs,  in  various                                                                    
     amounts -  to get  a high.   It's  also what's  used by                                                                    
     bodybuilders;  in the  past they  used and  abused this                                                                    
     [drug], and  it has also been  used as a sleep  aid and                                                                    
     for the  treatment of narcolepsy.   And the  third one,                                                                    
     which  I think  is really  the most  concerning to  the                                                                    
     sponsor and  to this  committee, obviously, is  that it                                                                    
     can be used to facilitate a sexual assault.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0837                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON continued:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     But my concerns with the  bill are:  ratcheting this up                                                                    
     from  a schedule  [IVA] to  a  schedule [IA]  certainly                                                                    
     also [ratchets]  up all of  the consequences  that come                                                                    
     with this  particular drug  and its  simple possession,                                                                    
     even  at   its  least  offensive  -   and  they're  all                                                                    
     offensive, all of  the abuses of this drug  are, not to                                                                    
     minimize even  the small recreational  use of it.   But                                                                    
     yet when  you elevate  it to a  schedule IA,  then that                                                                    
     ... makes  it [be] treated  as a felony for  any amount                                                                    
     that is possessed,  so it becomes a [class]  C felony -                                                                    
     all  the way  up to  an unclassified  felony.   And the                                                                    
     sentence  for  an  unclassified  felony  is  5  [years]                                                                    
     minimum  up  to   99  years.    So   we  certainly  are                                                                    
     increasing the penalties significantly.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     I've heard mention, in the  testimony, about [how] this                                                                    
     brings us in  line with the federal  schedule, and that                                                                    
     this  became a  schedule [IA]  controlled substance  in                                                                    
     2000.   That is  correct.   However, our  state doesn't                                                                    
     follow the  federal schedule,  and we  haven't followed                                                                    
     it for  over 20  years, and I  think its  recognized in                                                                    
     the  statute  that  we   don't  follow,  strictly,  the                                                                    
     federal  schedule.   An example  of that  is marijuana;                                                                    
     [it] is  a schedule  [IA] under the  federal schedules.                                                                    
     Many, many  drugs are schedule  [IA] under  the federal                                                                    
     code.   We have  classified drugs a  little differently                                                                    
     in Alaska.   The other  drugs that are in  schedule IVA                                                                    
     are  more similar  to  this drug,  and  it should  stay                                                                    
     where it is.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     To address  the concern, though,  of its abuse  and its                                                                    
     use  to facilitate  a sexual  assault, ...  there's ...                                                                    
     Representative Meyer's  bill that's  pending -  ... the                                                                    
     aggravator   for  using   a  controlled   substance  to                                                                    
     facilitate a sexual assault.   Certainly that is a good                                                                    
     way to address  the concerns in regard to  the abuse of                                                                    
     this drug for that purpose.   So, in conclusion, we are                                                                    
     opposed to this bill  because it's not proportionate in                                                                    
     relation  to the  other drugs  that are  similar to  it                                                                    
     that are  in schedule  [IVA]; ... the  penalties become                                                                    
     too severe  for the ...  least offensive of  the abuses                                                                    
     of it.   It may be appropriate to want  to increase the                                                                    
     penalty for  the delivery to  somebody at a  young age;                                                                    
     that's understandable.   But  do we  also want  to then                                                                    
     make [it] a  felony for a young person who  has some in                                                                    
     their  pocket [and]  they wanted  to try  it out  - now                                                                    
     they're going to have a felony?                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0979                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON said:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     ... From  the testimony  from Lieutenant  Grimes, there                                                                    
     haven't been  any prosecutions.   So I'm not  sure that                                                                    
     even  though on  the [Kenai]  Peninsula they're  seeing                                                                    
     people  come into  the emergency  room with  overdoses,                                                                    
     I'm not  sure we're at a  point where this needs  to be                                                                    
     jumped  up to  a schedule  [IA].   And there  are other                                                                    
     ways ...  [of] dealing with  the concerns for  using it                                                                    
     as  a sexual  assault facilitator,  ... [such  as] that                                                                    
     aggravator, which  I think  is very  likely to  pass; I                                                                    
     believe the bill is currently in Senate Rules.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     So  with that,  I'm certainly  available to  answer any                                                                    
     questions.   I  did pull  some information  off of  the                                                                    
     computer,   and  I   did  find   out  that   there  was                                                                    
     information from  2000 that showed  that 60  percent of                                                                    
     the users of GHB were 25  years or older, and that well                                                                    
     over half of  them were using it  for recreational use.                                                                    
     So, I think you have to  consider that this is not just                                                                    
     being  used   to  facilitate  sexual  assault.     It's                                                                    
     certainly being used  inappropriately by everybody, but                                                                    
     it may  be used in small  doses - where there  is not a                                                                    
     complete  loss  of  memory,  but  inappropriately  used                                                                    
     nonetheless - recreationally.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG closed public testimony on HB 140.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER said  that in  the instances  where GHB  is                                                               
used in sexual  assault, he thinks it would be  covered under [HB                                                               
297].   He offered that  if GHB is  being used as  a recreational                                                               
drug,  it  should  be  looked  at in  the  same  light  as  other                                                               
recreational drugs.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that  at this time, lacking further                                                               
information, it  would be "overshooting"  to make  [possession of                                                               
GHB] a felony in the same fashion as for heroin.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  referred  to  and  read  portions  of  the                                                               
aforementioned  article  in  the National  Institute  of  Justice                                                             
Journal.     She  commented  on   the  seeming  lack   of  actual                                                             
cases/prosecutions,  and said  that she  supports the  use of  an                                                               
aggravator,  surmising  that  perhaps through  that  legislation,                                                               
more  statistics  pertaining  to GHB-facilitated  sexual  assault                                                               
will come  to light.   She posited that  there is a  problem, but                                                               
said she didn't  know whether [adoption of HB 140]  is the way to                                                               
fix it.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1287                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT said:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     There have, in fact, been  prosecutions in the state of                                                                    
     Alaska.  What  winds up happening is,  they get wrapped                                                                    
     up  and dealt  down.   So, as  far as  maybe Lieutenant                                                                    
     Grimes  being aware  that someone's  been arrested  and                                                                    
     prosecuted  for it,  that might  not be  something that                                                                    
     she is  aware of.   There have,  in fact,  been deaths.                                                                    
     And  that's  one of  the  things  that we're  concerned                                                                    
     with.   A kid  carrying this drug  in their  pocket for                                                                    
     the  first  time may  not  know  that it's  similar  to                                                                    
     cocaine:   it only takes  once -  it only takes  once -                                                                    
     and it  can kill you  - it can stop  your breathing....                                                                    
     Respiratory arrest  has not occurred in  Alaska, but it                                                                    
     has occurred nationwide.  It doesn't take twice.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that the  committee see whether [HB 297]                                                               
becomes law,  before acting  on HB  140.   He said  that although                                                               
[GHB  abuse] is  a  very  serious issue,  it  may  not warrant  a                                                               
"threefold jump" from schedule IVA  to schedule IA.  He announced                                                               
that HB 140 would be held over.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SB 222 - REQUIRE SLOW DRIVERS TO PULL OVER                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[Contains brief mention of SB 339.]                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1383                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  last order of  business would                                                               
be CS FOR  SENATE BILL NO. 222(FIN), "An Act  relating to certain                                                               
motor vehicles that are required to yield to following traffic."                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1392                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SARA  WRIGHT,   Staff  to  Senator  Dave   Donley,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, said on  behalf of Senator Donley,  sponsor, that SB                                                               
222, with the  cooperation of the Department  of Transportation &                                                               
Public  Facilities  (DOT&PF),  increases the  amount  of  signage                                                               
along  some  of Alaska's  highways,  informing  motorists of  the                                                               
already existing  regulation prohibiting a vehicle  from delaying                                                               
five or more  vehicles.  Senate Bill 222 also  increases the fine                                                               
from $30  to $200, and  adds an assessment  of two points  on the                                                               
violator's driver's license.  She  noted that there is a proposed                                                               
House committee substitute.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1451                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to adopt  the proposed House committee                                                               
substitute (HCS) for SB 222,  version 22-LS0611\O, Ford, 4/22/02,                                                               
as a work draft.  There  being no objection, Version O was before                                                               
the committee.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WRIGHT  pointed  out  that  Version  O  no  longer  contains                                                               
language stipulating that  a driver who pulls over  must have 100                                                               
feet  of  unobstructed roadway.    The  language which  has  been                                                               
deleted is,  "there is at least  100 feet of visible  and in from                                                               
of that motor  vehicle and".  She explained that  this change was                                                               
made  after  a  constituent  expressed   the  concern  that  that                                                               
language  would encourage  people  to follow  too  closely.   She                                                               
noted  that the  existing regulations  simply stipulate  that the                                                               
driver pull over at the first available safe area.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  Ms.  Wright  whether  she  has  seen  the                                                               
correspondence from Mr. Dillard.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT said she had not.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG,  focusing on  one of  Mr. Dillard's  points, said                                                               
that under SB 222,  if a driver is driving 62  miles per hour and                                                               
the speed limit  is 65 miles per hour, he/she  would have to pull                                                               
over.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT  confirmed that that would  be the case if  the driver                                                               
has five or more vehicles  directly behind him/her.  She remarked                                                               
that  when  drivers  find   themselves  behind  slower  vehicles,                                                               
"that's  when they  get stupid;  they start  to pass  on corners,                                                               
pass in  areas that they  shouldn't."  The goal  of SB 222  is to                                                               
keep people safe.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined, however, that  if a person is driving only                                                               
three  miles per  hour under  the speed  limit, he/she  shouldn't                                                               
have to [pull over].                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1584                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT  pointed out that  according to existing  regulation -                                                               
13 AAC 02.050 - the driver  in that situation is required to pull                                                               
over.  That regulation reads:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     (b)  Upon all  roadways  outside an  urban district,  a                                                                    
     vehicle other  than an emergency vehicle  proceeding at                                                                    
     less than the maximum  authorized speed of traffic must                                                                    
     be  driven  in  the  right-hand lane  or  as  close  as                                                                    
     practicable  to  the right-hand  curb  or  edge of  the                                                                    
     roadway,  except when  overtaking  and passing  another                                                                    
     vehicle  proceeding  in  the  same  direction  or  when                                                                    
     preparing for  a left turn  at an intersection  or into                                                                    
     an alley,  private road,  or driveway.   However,  on a                                                                    
     two-lane  highway  outside   an  urban  district  where                                                                    
     passing is unsafe because of  oncoming traffic or other                                                                    
     conditions, the  driver of  a motor  vehicle proceeding                                                                    
     at less  than the  maximum authorized speed  of traffic                                                                    
     and behind whom  five or more vehicles are  formed in a                                                                    
     line shall  turn off the  roadway at the  nearest place                                                                    
     designated  as a  turnout or  wherever sufficient  area                                                                    
     for a safe turnout exists  in order to permit following                                                                    
     vehicles to pass.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG, after  remarking  that  the regulations  already                                                               
address this issue, asked, "Why are we making it a statute?"                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WRIGHT   reiterated  that  SB  222   increases  the  signage                                                               
pertaining  to  that  regulation;  the DOT&PF  has  committed  to                                                               
placing  20  signs  on  some  of Alaska's  highways  and  at  the                                                               
borders, informing people that this regulation exists.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that [the bill] doesn't say that.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1645                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HEATHER  M. NOBREGA,  Staff  to  Representative Norman  Rokeberg,                                                               
House  Judiciary Standing  Committee,  Alaska State  Legislature,                                                               
noted that  SB 222 also  increases the  fine [to $200]  and takes                                                               
[two] points off of a person's driver's license.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined  that a driver going only 3  miles per hour                                                               
under the speed  limit shouldn't have to pull over  even if there                                                               
are ten vehicles behind him/her.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  indicated that  regardless of how  fast she                                                               
is going, if there were that  many vehicles behind her, she would                                                               
pull over.   She mentioned, however, that she  has concerns about                                                               
putting such language in statute.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH said  that he  did not  see the  need for                                                               
this legislation;  additionally, he  said he  did not  think that                                                               
[neglecting to pull over] rises  to the level of losing [driver's                                                               
license]  points.   He  remarked that  unless  that provision  is                                                               
changed, he would not be able to support the bill.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked  how many points have to  be assessed before                                                               
a person has his/her driver's license revoked.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT said  that a person can have  his/her driver's license                                                               
revoked if assessed 12 points in  a 12-month period, or 18 points                                                               
in a 24-month period.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH reiterated that  [neglecting to pull over]                                                               
shouldn't rise to the level of losing points.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH noted that  people lose points for drunken                                                               
driving or  causing accidents.   He said that  he did not  have a                                                               
problem with the regulation or the  fine, but he does not support                                                               
the assessment of points.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER   suggested  deleting  the   assessment  of                                                               
points.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested changing the assessment to one point.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1746                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  asked if  the regulation  assesses driver's                                                               
license points.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WRIGHT  said   there  is  a  $30  fine   for  violating  the                                                               
regulation, but no deduction of points.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES asked,  "How does  this compare  with other                                                               
fines for violations?"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WRIGHT  said  that  there  is a  $30  fine  for  obstructing                                                               
traffic, and  a $50 fine for  emerging from an alley  or driveway                                                               
without stopping.  In response  to a question, she confirmed that                                                               
Senator  Donley has  other legislation  pending -  SB 339  - that                                                               
will increase criminal fines.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   JAMES   reiterated    that   she   agrees   with                                                               
Representative  Kookesh   on  the  issue  of   point  assessment.                                                               
Additionally,  she remarked  that the  bill should  stipulate how                                                               
many  miles per  hour below  the speed  limit one  must be  going                                                               
before having  to pull over.   She opined that "this  is really a                                                               
courtesy  issue more  than it  is  a violation  of driving,"  and                                                               
suggested that a $200 fine is a little steep.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1859                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  MEYER  said  that   he  wanted  to  discuss  some                                                               
possible amendments.   He suggested  amending line 5 to  read, "A                                                               
person  operating a  motor vehicle  five miles  below the  posted                                                               
speed limit".                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1872                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   ROKEBERG   called   Representative   Meyer's   suggestion                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 1.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1879                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER  then suggested  amending Version  O further                                                               
by  deleting  the  provision  regarding  point  assessment.    He                                                               
indicated, however, that he is in favor of the $200 fine.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  remarked that the committee  should first address                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment  1  before   moving  on  to  Representative                                                               
Meyer's  other   suggestions.    He  clarified   that  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1 would insert "five miles  per hour" on line [5] after                                                               
"vehicle".                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT  suggested instead that Conceptual  Amendment 1 insert                                                               
"five miles or more".                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1903                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG accepted  that language, and [although  it had not                                                               
been formally moved]  asked whether there were  any objections to                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 1.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1917                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH  objected for  the purpose  of discussion.                                                               
He said:  "I know in Alaska  and many other states, we talk about                                                               
the maximum  speed limit.   This is the  first time I  think I've                                                               
ever heard  us talk about a  minimum speed limit.   So, you might                                                               
have to look at that to see whether we can really do it."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  noted that  if the  provisions of  SB 222                                                               
apply  to the  U.S.  Army  when it  moves  vehicles  to and  from                                                               
different areas of the state, it could become problematic.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG  asked how much the  fine is for going  five miles                                                               
per hour over the speed limit.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. WRIGHT indicated that she is not sure how much that fine is.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER posited  that the fine for  going five miles                                                               
per  hour under  the speed  limit should  be consistent  with the                                                               
fine for going five miles per hour over the speed limit.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG opined  that under  the provisions  of SB  222, a                                                               
person would be fined more money  for going under the speed limit                                                               
than he/she would be for speeding.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOOKESH  withdrew  his  objection  to  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2018                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  [treating  Conceptual Amendment  1  as  adopted]                                                               
suggested  that the  committee next  take up  the issue  of point                                                               
assessment.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2035                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said  that he would like the fine  in SB 222                                                               
to be the  same as for going  five miles per hour  over the speed                                                               
limit, and suggested such as Conceptual Amendment [2].                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES  questioned making the  fine the same.   She                                                               
said that  going five miles per  hour under the speed  limit is a                                                               
lot safer than going five miles per hour over.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested, instead, changing the fine to $100.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER agreed.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2061                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG announced  Conceptual Amendment  2 to  be amended                                                               
such that it  would change the fine to $100  and would delete the                                                               
provision  pertaining  to  the assessment  of  points  against  a                                                               
person's driver's license.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2069                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG  asked  whether  there  were  any  objections  to                                                               
Conceptual Amendment  2, as amended.   There being  no objection,                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2074                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report  HCS for SB 222, version 22-                                                               
LS0611\O,  Ford,  4/22/02,  as  amended, out  of  committee  with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the  accompanying fiscal  notes.                                                               
There being  no objection,  HCS CSSB  222(JUD) was  reported from                                                               
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2079                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:31 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects