04/02/2001 01:12 PM House JUD

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

pdf txt

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 2, 2001 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 COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 3 "An Act relating to deposits to the Alaska permanent fund from mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, net profit shares under AS 38.05.180(f) and (g), federal mineral revenue sharing payments received by the state from mineral leases, and bonuses received by the state from mineral leases, and limiting deposits from those sources to the 25 percent required under art. IX, sec. 15, Constitution of the State of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 132 "An Act relating to the possession or distribution of alcohol in a local option area; requiring liquor license applicants to submit fingerprints for the purpose of conducting a criminal history background check, and relating to the use of criminal justice information by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; providing for a review of alcohol server education courses by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every two years; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 132(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 158 "An Act relating to the criteria for the adoption of regulations and to the relationship between a regulation and its enabling statute; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 3 SHORT TITLE:DEPOSITS TO THE PERMANENT FUND SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/08/01 0024 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00

01/08/01 0024 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/08/01 0024 (H) DAVIES, FATE; HAYES BILL: HB SHORT TITLE:LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICANT CHECK/TRAINING SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS MINUTE(L&C) Committee MINUTE(L&C) KOTT, MURKOWSKI BILL: HB SHORT TITLE:CRITERIA FOR REGULATIONS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MCGUIRE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS ROKEBERG WILSON 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: Presented HB JANICE ADAIR, Director Division of Environmental Health Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Anchorage, Alaska 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 01-52, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. Representatives Rokeberg, James, Coghill, Meyer, and Berkowitz were present at the call to order. Representative Kookesh arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB Number 0068 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to deposits to the Alaska permanent fund from mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, net profit shares under AS 38.05.180(f) and (g), federal mineral revenue sharing payments received by the state from mineral leases, and bonuses received by the state from mineral leases, and limiting deposits from those sources to the State of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR ROKEBERG, as the sponsor, explained that current statute provides that revenues from mineral leases, bonuses, and federal leases entered into after January 1980 be deposited into the corpus of the permanent fund at a 50 percent level versus the constitutionally mandated level of 25 percent. He said 3 simply also explained that the general fund (GF) budget in fiscal year (FY) 1980 was in excess of $4.07 billion, which he said is almost twice the present amount. He said that although the current statute was appropriately enacted at the time to direct a greater amount of mineral royalties from newer leases into the permanent fund, it is now time to repeal that statute because of the diminishing amount of GF revenue and the increased pressure to draw on the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) in order to balance the budget. He added that fields such as Alpine, Badami, Northstar, Meltwater [Participation Area], Tarn, Liberty, and others - as well as any new future developments - currently all fall under the 50 percent allocation scheme. CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned that the handouts from Legislative Research illustrate revenue changes, and he also remarked that based on the "fall forecast," the fiscal note from the Department of Revenue (DOR) reflects an increase of $40 million for FY 2002, $43.7 million for FY 2003, $40.2 million for FY million for FY 2007]. He also mentioned that the DOR has submitted charts showing historic and projected income and production information. He surmised from one of the charts that although production from the older fields is declining, production from the new fields is allowing the total production levels to stay relatively the same through the year 2009. CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned again that HB 3. CHAIR ROKEBERG offered the rejoinder that current statute requires that the additional monies be deposited into the corpus, or principal, of the permanent fund, instead of the earnings reserve. He opined that Representative Berkowitz's theory presupposes generation of earnings, which historically has occurred, but current market fluctuations make results more suspect for the coming year[s]. But for the amounts from the larger bond and real estate portfolio, [the legislature] is in the situation of realizing substantially less growth in those earnings. He remarked again that statute dictates additional monies go to the principal, and that because neither the legislature nor the people have agreed upon the expenditure of any funds for GF purposes from the earnings reserve, on a cash- flow basis, that money is "dead money." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ countered that according to his recollection, the money does not go straight to the corpus; [the legislature] appropriates it to the corpus. CHAIR ROKEBERG responded that the money goes straight to the corpus. Number 0818 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that the money goes directly into the corpus of the permanent fund. Although she understood Representative Berkowitz's presentation, she said that there is a difference between having money available and having only the interest income of the money available. She said that the same argument could be given that [the legislature], with 21 votes, could take the estimated $40 million and use it in the budget now; in fact, with 21 votes, [the legislature] could take enough money out of the earnings reserve to avoid taking any money at all out of the CBR. The legislature has not decided to do this, however, because it does not have a long-term plan. She added that all of these decisions - how "we" deal with the earnings reserve, deal with the PFD, deal with the CBR, and get enough money to keep from having less income than is spent - is part of a long-range plan. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that she has often said that she would not be voting for a part [of the plan] until she sees the whole thing; however, she added, HB state doesn't have enough money; although it was a good idea when the state had extra money, the extra [25 percent should no longer be placed into the corpus of the permanent fund]. She concluded by saying that she supported HB can take and which [could] be in effect by July 1. He added that funds from any future fields that come online at a 50 percent level would not replace the diminution of funds from current fields that are at the 25 percent level. He suggested that "all we're doing, is replacing [them] on a cash-flow basis." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that is one of the reasons why he will not hold HB be continuing discussion on the fact that "we are a lot bigger than we can afford." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said: In the whole scheme of economics, I think we do need a lesson on this issue ... that the only way that we can ever pay for our needs in this state is to have more economic activity. And the only way we're going to get some more economic activity is to spend some money in the areas where you can create some. We, as a state, own everything in this state; so that means that it's not out there for the picking without us spending some money to get it picked. [The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)] are some of the areas that we're being pretty skimpy on right now, and so we're discouraging any kind of economic activity. The second reason why we're discouraging economic activity is because we have a hole in our budget: we're spending more money than we're taking in. And until we change that, people are going to be hesitant to bring money into this state because they know that if we are going to tax anybody, we're going to tax the business, because we have a society who wants to pay nothing for anything - they just want things but don't want to pay. So, I agree with the representative from my neighboring district that we certainly have to be cautious, and I am very distressed about the amount of money that we're spending this year because we haven't got any overall plan as to how we're going to get there; it doesn't even do us any good to get some new economic activity if we don't have some way of tapping into that with, like, a broad-based tax that will help us to fund schools, and roads, and police, and all those kinds of things that we'll need more of when we have more people. So I think that we really do need to have a lesson in economics, and maybe I could put on a workshop one of these days on this, Mr. Chairman, so that we can understand how we're going to get there - to be prudent and still make enough money to survive over the long term. Number 1231 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 3 earnings reserve, and is one small step towards saving money. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added that [adopting HB HB Number 1440 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 132, "An Act relating to the possession or distribution of alcohol in a local option area; requiring liquor license applicants to submit fingerprints for the purpose of conducting a criminal history background check, and relating to the use of criminal justice information by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; providing for a review of alcohol server education courses by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every two years; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB Number 1463 HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB HB 132 application of the presumption that a person possesses alcohol with the intent to sell it, *Sec. ____. AS Sec. 04.11.499. Prohibition of importation after election. (a) If a majority prohibit the importation of alcoholic beverages under AS 04.11.491(a)(4) or beginning on the first day of the month following certification of the results of the election, may not knowingly send, transport, or bring an alcoholic beverage into the municipality or established village, unless the alcoholic beverage is sacramental wine to be used for bona fide religious purposes based on tenets or teachings of a church or religious body, is limited in quantity to the amount necessary for religious purposes, and is dispensed only for religious purposes by a person authorized by the church or religious body to dispense the sacramental wine. (b) In this section, (1) "bring" means to carry attempt or solicit to carry or convey; (2) "send" means to cause to distributed, or to attempt or solicit to cause to be taken or distributed, and includes use of the United States Post Office; (3) "transport" means to ship by includes delivering or transferring or attempting or soliciting to deliver or transfer an alcoholic beverage to any person or entity to be shipped to, delivered to, or left or held for pick up by, any person or entity. *Sec. ____. AS (c) In this section, (1) "common carrier" watercraft, aircraft, or railroad car available for public hire to transport freight or passengers; (2) "transport" has the meaning 04.11.499. Delete Section 4 of the bill and replace it with: *Sec. 4. AS (e) A person who sends, transports, or brings alcoholic beverages into a municipality or established village in violation of AS 04.11.499 is, upon conviction, (1) guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the quantity of alcoholic beverages [IMPORTED] is less liters of distilled spirits, 24 liters of wine, or 12 gallons of malt beverages; or (2) guilty of a class C felony if the quantity of alcoholic beverages [IMPORTED] is 6 more of distilled spirits, 24 liters or more of wine, or 12 gallons or more of malt beverages. MR. GUANELI explained that proposed Amendment 1 would give definition to certain words in current law in order that an attempt to violate the law can be prosecuted at the same level as an actual violation of the law. Number 1884 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, returning to the topic of amounts listed in HB 132 amounts absurd. CHAIR ROKEBERG reminded Representative James that those amounts are for presumption of possession and/or shipment; thus records could be kept of someone shipping those amounts during a calendar month. He maintained that two cases of wine and four cases of beer is not a large amount. He used the example of a hunting party in a rural area taking four cases of beer with them, which he said was not at all unusual. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that she understood the concept of presumptive possession, but she countered that people should not take alcohol on hunting trips. Number 1920 MR. GUANELI added that the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee had considerable discussion on this same topic. The ultimate decision was that the presumptive level of "hard liquor" (distilled spirits) needed to be cut in half. Generally, wine and beer are not being bootlegged; the big profit was being made selling hard liquor. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that he had heard that a bottle of vodka can sell for $75-80/quart. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH interjected that that price was cheap; he had heard of a "fifth" [of hard liquor] selling for that price. MR. GUANELI added that that was the typical price, but in some remote locations the price is considerably higher. On a case of hard liquor, the profit is easily several hundred dollars, or $1,000/case. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked why it is currently allowable to bring in 6 [liters] without [reaching the presumptive level]. Number 1996 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that it was a misdemeanor versus a felony. CHAIR ROKEBERG requested clarification. MR. GUANELI explained that in areas that have banned sale but not importation or possession [of alcohol], the offense is to sell. House Bill 132 establishes the presumptive level if someone is selling. In reality, there is no limit to the amount a person may possess in those areas where possession is not illegal, but at some point, if the amount a person possesses is large enough, [DOL/DPS] is going to presume the alcohol is being sold. He added that current law already has distinctions regarding large/small amounts [of alcohol]. Number 2057 MR. GUANELI, returning to the topic of proposed Amendment 1, said that the accompanying handout presented common examples of scenarios that occur in bootlegging situations. In these examples, under current law, if an attempt to transport large amounts into a local option area fails, the crime drops from a class C felony to a class A misdemeanor. He went on to explain that proposed Amendment 1 would define terms so that bootleggers would still face the higher charge even if their attempt to commit the crime failed. Specifically, the terms of "send", "transport", and "bring" would be further "attempting" and "soliciting". He also current definition of "attempt" means that a person with intent to do something takes a substantial step towards its commission. He added that [with proposed Amendment 1] the DOL has covered the gamut of situations that arise in bootlegging scenarios. Also, he said that proposed Amendment 1 would solve the practical day-to-day problems noted by prosecutors, and would help solve some of the kinds of problems broached by Representative Kookesh with regard to prosecution. MR. GUANELI clarified for Representative Rokeberg that the handout pertained to current law; because current law with regard to the terms of "send", "transport", automatically include an "attempt", it must be specified [via proposed Amendment 1] that "attempt" is included. He added that current definitions in both narcotics and robbery laws include "attempt". CHAIR ROKEBERG followed up this explanation by saying that law enforcement officials could then pursue a conviction rather than just settling for confiscation of the contraband. Chair Rokeberg asked Representative Kookesh what the price of vodka was in Angoon, which is a dry village. Number 2285 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH responded that it was $60/fifth of vodka and $60/"half-rack" of beer. He added that a joke going around Angoon goes like this: "Do you know why you call a quart of alcohol a fifth in Angoon? Because there are only five drinks in it." He said this by way of explaining that in [dry villages], if a person is going to drink from a bottle in a group, that person tries to drink as much possible right then because the bottle won't come back around. This practice was a deciding factor in the decision made by residents to vote Angoon dry, but it has not helped because bootlegging is a thriving business in rural Alaska. CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed the concern that as more pressure is put on bootleggers, the procurement of drugs, as opposed to alcohol, will become more prevalent. He said that it was his understanding that drugs, even "harder" drugs, were becoming more available throughout the state, even in small villages. He said he worried that the cost of buying drugs would become cheaper than buying bootlegged alcohol, thus shifting the problem from alcohol to drugs. Number 2378 MR. GUANELI said that shifting to some additional drug use was a possibility. He noted that whenever someone is addicted to controlled substances of any kind, that person will have the desire to feed that addiction with something else [if the person's drug of choice becomes unavailable]. He added that he did not know the extent to which people addicted to alcohol will resort to another type of drug, but an increase in drug use in rural villages is occurring, although drugs are not as readily available. Mr. Guaneli mentioned that there might be an increase in the manufacture of homebrew, but he said the focus should be on trying to cut down both the easy access of bootlegged alcohol as well as the profits bootleggers make, while increasing the penalties that bootleggers are subject to. CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that he thought interdiction would raise prices and profits [of bootlegged alcohol]. Number 2441 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH added that he had close friends who had quit drinking but had substituted marijuana use in its place. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if [the penalty] of forfeiture had been used much in the area [of bootlegging]; under AS facilitate transportation [of bootlegged alcohol] are subject to forfeiture. MR. GUANELI responded that there are a lot of appropriate uses for forfeiture and this is one of them. He added that forfeiture in this instance would be distinct from forfeiture of a vehicle under the DWI laws. He also added, however, that it was his belief that most [bootlegged] liquor comes in through Alaska Airlines or some other commercial carrier. TAPE 01-52, SIDE B Number 2484 MR. GUANELI continued by saying that when people use the USPS or Alaska Airlines to transport contraband, the DOL does not take action against those entities or other commercial carriers. CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that proposed Amendment 1 would be set aside until the rest of the testimony was heard. Number 2420 DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, Department of Revenue, testified via teleconference and said that Section 3 of HB current practice of conducting criminal background checks on liquor license applicants. He noted that currently [background checks] are done just as a "pass though" from the ABC Board to the DPS; the checks are conducted, as required by state law, based on fingerprints, which gives a greater certainty that applicants are who they say they are. He said, however, that the ABC Board feels it would be in the public's best interest to expand and take into account today's more mobile society. He likened a more thorough background check to an ounce of prevention, so that when the ABC Board makes its determination on an applicant, it will have a nationwide criminal history [databank] at its disposal. To this end, federal law requires statutory authorization of the ABC Board to conduct nationwide background checks using the FBI databank. Mr. Griffin added that the cost of going after a "bad licensee" is in the tens of thousands of dollars, whereas not licensing that person to begin with would be more fiscally prudent. He noted that Linda Kesterson and Bill Roche were available at his office for questions. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she assumed that there was a charge for getting the FBI report, and she asked if the application fee would be increased to include that cost. Number 2293 MR. GRIFFIN answered that the additional cost of $20-25 would be borne by the applicant, and that the report would take perhaps an additional ten business days to arrive. And while he acknowledged that "time is money" and is a point of concern with some applicants, he said that the ABC Board feels that extra time spent is well worth it in order to have the more thorough background check conducted. Number 2270 CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that Mr. Griffin's testimony in the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee indicated that some of the more thorough investigations conducted by the ABC Board have revealed applicants with stateside criminal records, and this information would not have shown up under the current background check procedures. MR. GRIFFIN confirmed that that was an anecdotal example of why the ABC Board wanted to begin doing the more thorough background checks as a matter of course. He added that the ABC Board has no way of knowing how many current licensees would not have been issued licenses to begin with, because a more thorough background check would have revealed a criminal history. He also said, however, that the ABC Board, when considering an applicant's criminal history, treats every licensing question on a case-by-case basis; just because an applicant has a criminal history does not mean an automatic veto [of the application]. He said that in the case he was familiar with, a person from California was convicted of selling alcohol without a license, kidnapping for profit, and a couple of other serious charges. He said that that information came to the ABC Board serendipitously because that individual was employed by the Anchorage Police Department as an informant. Number 2188 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what kind of response is given to the applicant once the background check is completed. MR. GRIFFIN explained that if something comes up during the background check, the ABC Board meets with the applicant in executive session to discuss the incidents surrounding the conviction(s), and every possible step is taken to ensure the applicant's privacy. He added that based on the applicants criminal background, the ABC Board can deny the license transfer, put conditions on the transfer, or require additional background checks on a frequent basis. The ABC Board is not limited to just denying the license. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that he'd asked the question because he wanted to know that the applicant could take part in the discussion with the ABC Board if a criminal history check warranted further scrutiny. Number 2102 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if the ABC Board had any objections to proposed Amendment 2, which removes Section 5 of providing for a review of alcohol server education courses by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every two years; Page 3 Delete lines 4 through 6 Renumber remaining section accordingly. CHAIR ROKEBERG further explained that proposed Amendment 2 would remove from HB review the TAM [Techniques of Alcohol Management] course every two years instead of every three years. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked why that language was in to begin with. CHAIR ROKEBERG responded that he thought inclusion of that language was a mistake. Number 2079 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the language in Section 5 meant that the TAM course would be redesigned every two years instead of every three, or if it meant that the TAM course would be given every two years instead of every three years. She was concerned that if the latter, there might be people wanting to take the course sooner than once every three years. MR. GRIFFIN explained that the ABC Board simply certifies any alcohol server training courses offered to ensure that they include the list of items required by Alaska law. Many of the courses are offered nationwide by associations in the hospitality industry, and the list of items that must be included in those courses is customized to fit Alaska law. Thus, Section 5 simply said that the ABC Board would review those courses every two years instead of every three years. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the courses that are offered stay current with Alaska law. With regard to the question of how often alcohol server training courses are offered, he said that some courses in the Anchorage area are offered on a weekly basis, and perhaps a little less frequently in other urban areas. He added that a challenge has been to offer training in more remote areas of Alaska, although the courses are not a responsibility of the state but are provided by different organizations. Again, he said Section 5 would simply require that the courses offered would be reviewed more frequently than they presently are. He added that the ABC Board did not have any strong feelings, one way or the other, about that change. Doing the review every two years would require more work on the part of the ABC Board, but anything that can be done in the area of prevention is considered time well spent. Number 1962 CHAIR ROKEBERG said that he had put Section 5 in (JUD) was Committee. CHAIR ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 2:29 p.m. to 2:31 p.m. HB Number 0807 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 158, "An Act relating to the criteria for the adoption of regulations and to the relationship between a regulation and its enabling statute; and providing for an effective date." Number 0791 REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, suggested that the committee hear testimony on A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary decision - ruled that [this statute] was unconstitutional on the basis that it did not comply with the presentment requirement because it essentially allowed other statutes to be amended without the changes first being presented to the governor in the regular fashion. She added that there were 11 other states at that time with similar provisions, and therefore Alaska was not alone in its feelings of frustration over the issue. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE also explained that the U.S. Supreme Court - in INS v. Chadha - ruled that the veto power was a violation of powers on the federal level; although that case didn't have a direct impact on Alaska, she added, the result was clear, and in the years that followed INS v. Chadha, nine other states with a similar provision had it ruled unconstitutional. In two states - Idaho and New Hampshire - their supreme courts upheld the power to veto by resolution; their basic reasoning was that the separation of powers in those states charges only the legislative branch with the power to make laws, while their executive branches have only the power to execute those laws, and that these two branches of government were distinct and different. A further aspect of their rulings is that they determined that rules from administrative agencies actually had a lesser power - a lesser effect - than the laws made by the legislatures. Therefore, in Idaho and New Hampshire the ability to repeal by resolution is alive and well, and was ruled perfectly constitutional by their courts. Number 0521 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said that in the nine other states that had their laws regarding veto by resolution overturned, all of them, with the exception of Kansas, have taken some other remedial step in response. In a brief overview of the remedial steps the other states took, she explained that in Connecticut, the voters - via the state constitution - gave the legislature the ability to veto by regulation (in Alaska, this option has been twice rejected by the voters). In West Virginia, they created a system whereby state agencies don't have the power to promulgate rules without first submitting them to the legislature (she noted that this is similar to the concept 158 in that She also explained that in West Virginia, after submitting the proposed regulations to the legislature, the legislature in turn must enact a statute that authorizes the regulations to go into law. She recounted that Michigan is doing something similar to what is proposed in HB offered to hold those comments at this time since 158 Number 0518 ROBERT B. STILES, President, Resource Development Council (RDC) for Alaska, Inc., testified via teleconference and gave two examples of problems with HB ADJOURNMENT Number 0784 CHAIR ROKEBERG [recessed] the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting at 3 p.m. to a call of the chair on 4/3/01 for the purpose of again hearing CSHB 132(L&C) Out of 03/26/01 0725 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 1DP 6NR 03/26/01 0726 (H) DP: ROKEBERG; NR: HALCRO, 03/26/01 0726 (H) CRAWFORD, HAYES, MEYER, 03/26/01 0726 (H) FN1: ZERO(REV) 03/26/01 0726 (H) FN2: INDETERMINATE(LAW) 03/26/01 0726 (H) FN3: (COR) 03/26/01 0726 (H) FN4: (ADM) 03/30/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 03/30/01 (H) <Bill Postponed> 04/02/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 158 02/28/01 0463 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - 02/28/01 0463 (H) JUD 02/28/01 0463 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY 03/07/01 0501 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON, FATE, 03/12/01 0553 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OGAN 03/16/01 0636 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MURKOWSKI, 03/16/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 03/16/01 (H) <Bill Canceled> 03/22/01 0697 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER 03/30/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 03/30/01 (H) <Bill Postponed> 04/02/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132 on behalf of the House name='HB132' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 540 name='HB132' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132 1111 East 80th Avenue href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>CSHB 132(L&C). 5700 East Tudor Road href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132. 900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 ll/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>CSHB 132(L&C); urged caution /Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158, provided 121 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 250 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158, gave examples 158. 555 Cordova Street href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158, answered 3 - DEPOSITS TO THE PERMANENT FUND 25 percent required under art. IX, sec. 15, Constitution of the that HB reverts to the 25 percent constitutional mandate. He 2004, $38.6 for FY 2005, $27.2 million for FY 2006, [and $24.9 s/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3 would replace the Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3. He offered that HB 3 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3 on the of HB 3. s/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3, the state, over the href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3 will enable [the name='HB3' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3; the GF or it's ill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3 is the one exception 3 makes sense, particularly now that the /Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3 out of the href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3, he will not 2002 GF budget, is responsible cash-flow management. He said 3 is a prudent and immediate step that the legislature 3 up, but he added that he thinks there has to Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3 out of committee with il/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3 was reported from the House avoids the issues surrounding taxation and the use of the href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB3'>HB 3] is the prudent 3 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.] 132 - LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICANT CHECK/TRAINING 132(L&C).] 132 on behalf of the committee. She explained that did three things with regard to bootlegging. For the /Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132 decreases, by half, the is/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132 reduces, by half, ail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132 changes the penalty for the HB 132 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132 that href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132] and it href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132, it is href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132. He went on HB 132 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132 do not 04.11.499 is amended to read: of the voters vote to (5) or (b)(3) or (4), a person, or convey, or to be taken or any method, and 04.16.125(c) is amended to read: means a motor vehicle, given in AS 04.16.200(e) is amended to read: than 6 [12] [12] liters or as they pertain to personal consumption, called those defined to include explained that the and "bring" does not 04.16.220, aircraft, vehicles, or vessels used to transport or 132 is an expansion of the ABC Board's name='HB132' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132 and 132 language that instructs the ABC Board to HB 132 name='HB132' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132 to name='HB132' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>HB 132, but 30 percent. He commented, "I hope you do better than that." 04.11.499, says following certification of the results of the area generally; 22?Root=HB132'>HB 132, pertained to the penalty of both s/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB132'>CSHB 132(L&C), as amended, CSHB reported from the House Judiciary Standing 158 - CRITERIA FOR REGULATIONS href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158 and then 1930s and reached a peak in the 1970s when government at both in HB the burden of proof comes through the legislature). ?Root=HB158'>HB 158 in that if the regulation review She href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158 and dislikes ail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158 may have some unanticipated 158 has unintended consequences, but she href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158 will be ll/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158, she would be delighted ll/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158, version 22-LS0578\F, HB but wished to hold her comments for the time being. ail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158. First, it certainly throws l/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158 as drafted, all of those href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158; additionally, HB 158 if HB 158 name='HB158' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB158'>HB 158 was 158 would be held over. 2?Root=HB4'>HB 4. s"> id="docLink">Open document in new windowX ght:100%;min-height:600px" id="docFrame"> width="105" height="107" bills, locate ist-whos-who.php">contact information. g.gov/webmaster.php">help

SMS Bill Tracking

Text a bill number (ex: HB1) to 559-245-2529 to enroll in text alerts. You will receive an enrollment confirmation and instructions on how to stop receiving the alerts.

04/02/2001 01:12 PM House JUD

SMS Bill Tracking

WHO REPRESENTS ME??

Quick Links

Legislative Links

senate

house