Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/04/1997 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 1997
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE BILL NO. 214
"An Act relating to an employer's knowledge of an employee's
physical condition for purposes of the Alaska Workers' Compensation
Act; excluding certain participants in the Alaska temporary
assistance program from coverage under the Alaska Workers'
Compensation Act; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 214 OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 207
"An Act relating to employer drug and alcohol testing programs."
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 218
"An Act relating to regulation and examination of insurers and
insurance agents; relating to kinds of insurance; relating to
payment of insurance taxes and to required insurance reserves;
relating to insurance policies; relating to regulation of capital,
surplus, and investments by insurers; relating to hospital and
medical service corporations; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 214
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS COMP:TEMP. ASSISTANCE/MED. CONDIT
SPONSOR(S): RULES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/26/97 849 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/26/97 850 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
04/04/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/07/97 1010 (H) L&C RPT 6DP
04/07/97 1010 (H) DP: COWDERY, SANDERS, KUBINA, RYAN
04/07/97 1010 (H) HUDSON, ROKEBERG
04/07/97 1010 (H) 4 ZERO FNS (LAW, DHSS, ADM, LABOR)
04/07/97 1010 (H) REFERRED TO RULES
BILL: HB 207
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN, Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/21/97 785 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/21/97 785 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
04/04/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 218
SHORT TITLE: OMNIBUS INSURANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/27/97 872 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/27/97 872 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
04/04/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6848
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 214.
PAUL GROSSI, Director
Division of Workers' Compensation
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 25512
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5512
Telephone: (907) 465-2797
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 214.
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 207.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 207.
JOHN WHEATLEY, Vice President
Policy
Support Industry Alliance
4201 "B" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 563-2226
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 207.
RONALD JORDAN, Owner
Medical Specimen Services, Incorporated
4141 "B" Street, suite 206
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 563-8656
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 207.
RANDY RUEDRICH, Chairman
Independent Association of Drilling Contractors
101 West Benson, Suite 503-AA
Telephone: (907) 563-5530
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 207.
MATTHEW FAGNANI, President
Allvest Laboratories, a subsidiary of
NANA Development Corporation
341 West Tudor Road, Suite 106
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 563-8378
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 207.
BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS, Director
Legislative and Government Affairs
Teamsters Local 959
4300 Boniface Parkway
Anchorage, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 269-236
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 207.
PAM La BOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 586-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 207.
MARIANNE BURKE, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce
and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
Telephone: (907) 465-2515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 218.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-33, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee to order at 3:25 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Cowdery, Sanders,
Hudson and Kubina. Representative Ryan arrived at 3:50 p.m.
HB 214 - WORKERS COMP:TEMP. ASSISTANCE/MED. CONDIT
Number 105
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would hear HB 214, "An
Act relating to an employer's knowledge of an employee's physical
condition for purposes of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act;
excluding certain participants in the Alaska temporary assistance
program from coverage under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act;
and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Representative
Pete Kott.
Number 137
GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to present the
sponsor statement. He informed the committee that HB 214 does two
things. It clears up an inconsistency that currently exists
between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Alaska
workers' compensation laws. He said when an employer is covered by
the ADA, it is illegal for the employer to inquire into the
prospective employee's disabilities prior to making a hiring
decision or a conditional offer of employment. After a conditional
offer of employment has been made then the employee can be required
to fill out a medical questionnaire asking him to reveal his/her
disabilities and prior injuries, but until that point it's illegal.
Mr. Dozier informed the committee that under current Alaska law,
employees are denied workers' compensation if they lie about their
physical condition in an application for employment or in a pre-
employment questionnaire. Obviously, they can't be asked this
question under the ADA. So consequently there is an inconsistency
here. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution
this could be deemed to be unconstitutional. Section 1 of HB 214
corrects this problem and makes Alaska statute consistent with the
requirements of the ADA.
Number 245
MR. DOZIER informed the committee that under current Alaska law,
employers are accorded relief from the second injury fund if they
hire or retain an employee after learning of a initial injury.
That also suggests an inconsistency between Alaska law and the ADA
in that it seems to require the employer to know of the initial
injury prior to the hiring decision. Section 2 corrects this
problem by removing the "hired or" language and simply requires
that the employee was retained in employment after the employer
acquired the knowledge of the initial injury.
MR. DOZIER referred to Sections 3 and 4 and said they clear up a
question that has been presented since the recent enactment of
welfare reform by the legislature. He explained under welfare
reform, recipients of welfare or temporary assistance may be
required to engage in work-like activities. This has presented a
question as to whether those individuals who are engaged in these
activities must be covered under workers' compensation. Mr. Dozier
said HB 214 settles that issue and says that if the individual is
not receiving compensation for his/her activities, then that
individual is not covered by workers' compensation. He said he
would be happy to answer questions.
Number 464
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "When you invoke the Supremacy Clause of
the U.S. Constitution, were you talking about the concept of
primacy or what?"
MR. DOZIER indicated the answer is yes.
Number 502
PAUL GROSSI, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor, came before the committee to testify on HB
214. He said the department supports the bill which basically
includes technical amendments to clarify some potential
discrepancies and coverage. Mr. Grossi said the first two sections
of the bill deal with the potential preemption. They allow the
employer to obtain necessary information about an employee's
physical condition, but also allows the employee to maintain his or
her rights under the ADA. The employer can obtain the information
that they need to have the potential coverage that Section 2 talks
about, which is coverage under the second injury fund. Mr. Grossi
informed the committee that the second injury fund is a dedicated
fund that preexisted statehood. The purpose of it was to allow
employers to pool money. If they hire or retain an employee who
has a permanent physical disability and is later on involved in a
second injury, after a certain amount of compensation is paid,
they're reimbursed for those compensation benefits. This bill
allows that to be maintained.
MR. GROSSI said Section 3 clarifies who is covered and who isn't
covered under the welfare reform changes. He said there are people
who are involved in the public assistance program who would be
covered, but there are traditional workers who are involved in an
employee/employer relationship where they get paid by the employer
to perform the job. All others who are involved in activities that
are required so that they can maintain their public assistance or
Alaska temporary assistance benefits are not covered under the act.
The reason this is necessary is because these things could be
involved in litigation.
Number 733
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY said, "This just excludes part of the
ATAPP people or not all of them?"
MR. GROSSI responded all of them who are receiving just their
benefits under that program. There are those who are eligible for
coverage under workers' compensation, but they're traditional
employees. There are those who went out and got a job, or what
they call it in the law, "unsubsidized work," which is really a job
or subsidized work on the job training. "Subsidized" is a job that
the employer may have received some grants to help pay wages. It
basically covers those who were traditionally covered under the
Workers' Compensation Act and excludes those who aren't really
employees under the act.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there are any other definitions in
Alaska Statutes of "on the job training."
MR. GROSSI indicated there aren't. He noted AS 23.30.265 relates
to definitions.
Number 869
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the above mentioned definitions are
exclusions in AS 23.30.230, which is the workers' comp title.
MR. GROSSI said that is true.
Number 938
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked Mr. Grossi if he has heard from
anyone who against the bill.
MR. GROSSI said he doesn't know of anybody against the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "If we didn't pass this, should we
expect an awful lot of people who are going through this temporary
assistance program, in may cases unpaid, would have -- and then
probably exercise some sort of a claim. Don't you have to have
some sort of an income in order to base a claim?"
MR. GROSSI responded they do have an income in the sense that
they're receiving their public assistance. It's questionable
whether they would win, but they would still have the right to file
a claim and litigate.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said if they're working on this transitionary
type of a program and they're injured, why wouldn't we want to
provide them with an opportunity for workers' compensation.
MR. GROSSI explained workers' compensation was designed to take
care of a loss of income and medical costs. They wouldn't lose
those; they would receive their temporary assistance of benefits
regardless of whether they're able to work or not. He noted they
would also be entitled to medical benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out that he wasn't in the legislature
when the temporary assistance program was enacted.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said it is a new program resulting from the
Welfare Reform Act. It becomes effective July 1, which is why
there is a need for the enactment of the legislation.
Number 1211
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked if this would apply only to
someone who lied on an application.
MR. GROSSI said the first section applies to making sure that
employees give employers correct and accurate information so the
employer knows about the physical condition of the employee for
several reasons, obviously safety would be one of them.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said if they lie, they're not covered.
MR. GROSSI said is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked why anyone would lie. He asked what
would be gained.
MR. GROSSI said he doesn't know why they would lie. He said they
might feel that they would gain some employment that they might not
gain if they hadn't lied.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said, "If someone gets a job and they're on
some kind of assistance that's paying for it for a period of time,
then that goes away later doesn't it?"
MR. GROSSI said Sections 1 and 2 are not really connected to
Section 3, only in the sense of a general way that they would be
connected to all employment. Section 3 relates to welfare reform
and Sections 1 and 2 have to do with potential preemption as a
result of the ADA.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said Section 1 speaks to someone who has a
preexisting condition and lies on his employment application. They
would not be eligible for workmens' compensation because they lied.
They might already have a back problem before they go to work and
then claim they got just got it. That has nothing to do with
anybody being on assistance. For the people on assistance, Section
3 defines who is covered on assistance. Some people don't need to
be covered because they're already receiving a benefit through the
other programs. So they don't need workmens' compensation and
there is no sense for an employer to be charged with it.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said the object of them going to work is to
get them off of the other program.
MR. GROSSI said Section 3 just deals with those participants in the
temporary assistance program. Once they enter the actual work
force, they're covered as any other employee is. If they're in the
program and they're involved in an actual job, they're covered.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the bill makes it clear that people who
are on the job training are covered.
Number 1518
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "This is conjuring up an awful lot of
memories of similar discussions on this workers' compensation from
the past and the false statement by the employee. By beefing this
up here I think you may be hopefully reaching into an awful lot of
employees, for example, in the timber industry. I remember some
years back when folks would tell me that there is an awful lot of
what they called `gypo timber operators' that would come up from
the Lower 48 and get involved in the trees, hire up a bunch of
people, destroy their back and their lungs and God knows everything
else, and then those people would leave there, knowing that they're
just about ready for workers' compensation, switch to another
employer and would go right on it. So what you've done here is, at
any rate, it looks like to me you've beefed up that provision. It
should make it tougher for employees, at any rate, to move knowing
that they've got this injury than they have in the past. So
somebody may have some additional costs because they're is going to
be some additional medical examinations and there is going to have
to be somebody that is going to be monitoring or investigating
these kinds of things, but apparently not."
MR. GROSSI explained it would give the employer the right to get
that information. Now whether they use it or not, that's up to
them. He noted that particular section of statute has been in
existence since 1988. It would conform with provisions in the ADA.
Number 1625
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 214 out of
committee with the accompanying zero fiscal note and individual
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was an objection. Hearing none,
HB 214 moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called for an at-ease at 3:50 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 3:55 p.m.
HB 207 - EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING PROGRAM
Number 1765
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next item on the agenda would be HB
207, "An Act relating to employer drug and alcohol testing
programs," sponsored by Representative Green.
Number 1781
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He said
Ronald Jordan, a businessman in the drug testing industry, had
contacted a number of legislators with copies of model legislation
other states have adopted. Representative Green discovered that HB
522, Representative Kott's bill from last session, dealt with this
same issue. Representative Kott chose not to pursue this type of
legislation, so Representative Green sponsored HB 207.
MR. LOGAN commented that 100 companies in Alaska support this bill
as well as the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, representing 7,000
companies, the Alliance, representing about 400 companies, and the
Alaska Trucking Association.
MR. LOGAN explained that this legislation offers a carrot, but also
holds a stick. The bill offers indemnity to employers against
certain types of legal action if they will institute a drug policy.
This type of legislation has been introduced in several states. On
March 25, the Governor signed this same bill into law. Utah and
Arizona have this law. States are adopting this type of
legislation because of federal requirements for drug testing. This
bill establishes a state policy on drug testing.
Number 1964
MR. LOGAN stated that Section 1 prohibits an employee from suing an
employer as long as the employer's action is based on a good faith,
positive drug or alcohol impairment test. Employers are required
to institute a drug and alcohol abuse policy in order to receive
this indemnity. Page 3, under employer policy, it lists those
things that an employer must do in order to be granted this
indemnity. He said one thing that is included as one of the
requirements for employers is not only that they have a written
policy, but that they follow procedures that are of the highest
standard in the industry. Page 4 states how the samples must be
collected, treated and tested. In the middle of page 5, testing
procedures are listed and what has to happen. At the bottom of
page 5, it states, "For employees, drug testing must include
confirmation of a positive drug test result."
Number 2041
MR. LOGAN said one of the questions that often comes up is, "What
happens with a false positive?" If a positive test occurs that
test has to be confirmed by a different process other than the test
that was initially used. The top of page 6, disciplinary
procedures, describes the rights of the employer and employee. If
a positive test occurs, the employer is allowed to take adverse
employment action, including termination of that employment. Under
confidentiality of results, the bill talks about how these results
have to be kept confidential. The top of page 7 deals with the
possibility of a collective bargaining agreement. It states that
if there is a component to a collective bargaining agreement that
is not part of HB 207, then the employer still gets the full
benefits of this bill. The rest of the bill deals with
definitions.
Number 2128
MR. LOGAN commented that in discussions with industry and people
from labor organizations, the sponsor has agreed to make number of
small but important changes. He said Amendment 1, on page 3, line
23, following "used", insert ", including an employee's right to a
confirmatory drug test to be reviewed by a licensed physician or
doctor of osteopathy after an initial positive drug test result in
accordance with AS 23.10.640(d)". On page 6, line 2, following
".", insert "An employer may not rely on a positive drug test
unless the confirmatory drug test results have been reviewed by a
licensed physician or doctor of osteopathy. The physician or
osteopath shall (1) contact the employee, within 48 hours, and
offer an opportunity to discuss the confirming test result; (2)
interpret and evaluate the positive drug test results for legal
use; (3) report test results that have been caused by prescription
medication as negative." There are two sections being addressed in
Amendment 1, the first is the written policy of the employer and
the second is in the testing procedures.
Number 2214
MR. LOGAN stated that the new language says that in order to
prevent an adverse employer action against an employee, if there is
a positive test result, the test has to be proven to be correct and
that there is not a good reason why the test is positive. A
medical review officer, a licensed physician or doctor of
osteopathy, would contact the employee to discuss the confirming
test result which would provide an opportunity for the employee to
explain the result. The doctor must interpret and evaluate the
drug test results for legal use. If the doctor feels it was a
false positive test then they will report it as a negative result
to the employer.
Number 2341
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he feels that Amendment 1 does not provide
a procedural step other than the assumption that a physician would
review the test.
Number 2360
MR. LOGAN responded that the sponsor is satisfied with the
implication of the amendment language.
Number 2381
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this doctor was hired by the testing
service or the employer.
Number 2397
MR. LOGAN answered that it could be a doctor on staff or a
contracted doctor. He said the sponsor did not want to specify who
the doctor had to be only that it had to happen.
Number 2397
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG objected for purposes of discussion.
MR. LOGAN stated that someone from the testing industry was in
attendance and they could give the committee a clearer idea of the
chain of events.
Number 2420
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG withdrew his objection to the adoption of
Amendment 1. He asked if there was a further objection to the
adoption of Amendment 1. Hearing none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 2429
MR. LOGAN referred to Amendment 2, on page 4, line 24, following
".", insert "An employer may not initiate a testing program under
AS 23.10.600 - 23.10.699 until at least 30 days after the employer
notifies employees of the employer's intent to implement the
program and makes written copies of the policy available as
required by (a) of this section."
Number 2434
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, for the
purpose of discussion.
Number 2452
MR. LOGAN explained that Amendment 2 is in response to an Alaska
Supreme Court decision, Ludke v. Neighbors Drilling. The case
involved an Alaskan company who initiated a drug policy, but did
not give fair warning to the employees that the policy had been
instituted. Amendment 2 gives the employee plenty of time to
understand the new drug and alcohol policy.
Number 2482
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON again moved for the adoption of Amendment 2.
Hearing no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
TAPE 97-33, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. LOGAN said Amendment 3, page 3, line 28, following "results",
insert ", and the obligation of the employer to provide written
test results to the employees within five working days of a written
request to do so, provided the written request is made within six
months of the date of the test". He said the current language of
the bill allows room for an employer to delay giving the results of
the testing.
Number 046
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move Amendment 3 for the
purpose of discussion. Hearing no objection, Amendment 3 was
before the committee.
Number 052
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned the six month language.
Number 056
MR. LOGAN stated that in discussions with companies, six months was
determined to be the time frame in which employers would have
something like this easily retrievable. After six months this
information goes into a box and into storage.
Number 089
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested that this information could be in
a secondary office of a company.
Number 094
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there would be an objection to inserting
language for a shorter period of time.
Number 107
MR. LOGAN explained that they had conceived of a situation where an
employee tests positive and goes into treatment.
Number 117
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN explained that the six month provision was
included for the benefit of the employee. He said for a six month
period after the five days that an employee has been notified, the
employee would have six months to come back and make another
request.
Number 152
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if it was possible for the employee to be
retested in this six month period, in the possibility that a
positive result occurred.
Number 165
MR. LOGAN referred to the bottom of page 5, line 30, where it
states, "the drug test must include a confirmation of a positive
drug test result, and the confirmation must be done by a different
process."
Number 178
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was an objection to the adoption
of Amendment 3. Hearing none, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 185
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 4 for the
purpose of discussion.
Number 187
MR. LOGAN referred to Amendment 4, page 3, line 30, following ";",
insert ", if the employee requests an opportunity to explain the
positive test result within ten working days after the employee is
notified of the test result, the employer must provide an
opportunity, in a confidential setting, within 72 hours of
receiving written notice, or prior to taking adverse employment
action." This amendment gives the employee the opportunity, after
a second test is done and after the doctor has verified the test as
positive, to explain why the test was positive to the employer. He
said the employer must provide that opportunity in a confidential
setting. They have to go into an office where other employees
can't hear what's going on. Mr. Logan stated it has to happen
within 72 hours or prior to taking adverse employment action.
Before an employee can be terminated, if they ask for a chance to
talk to their boss, they get it and it has to part of the written
policy.
Number 252
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked who was giving the written notice.
Number 258
MR. LOGAN answered that the employee would be giving the written
notice.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this needs to be clarified.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN answered that it is specified on line 20.
Number 272
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said as he read the bill, the employer
provides the notice within five days after notification providing
the minimum time of delay has passed. Once the employee has this
notice, he has ten working days to have an opportunity to explain
why the positive test results occurred. This is done in a
confidential setting.
Number 314
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said this employee would have gone through all
the tests and talked to the doctor. The employee then has ten days
to request a discussion with the employer. The employer must
provide that in a confidential setting within three days, 72 hours.
Number 338
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS suggested having the employee put this
request in writing. It could come out to be the employee's word
against the employer's word.
Number 361
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that is reasonable and language could be
inserted on line 29, "on the employee's written request".
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested a friendly amendment, "the employer
requests, in writing, an opportunity to explain the positive test
results in ten working days."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said this was the same thing, either way is
fine.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved the amendment to the amendment, after
the word "requests", add "in writing".
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to line 6 of the amendment, and
suggested a friendly amendment after, "receiving", add
"employee's".
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was further discussion to
Amendment 4 and the modifications. Hearing none, Amendment 4, as
amended, was adopted.
Number 428
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 5 for the
purpose of discussion.
Number 435
MR. LOGAN referred to Amendment 5, page 5, line 10 and said it
should state "page 5, line 11." So on page 5, line 11, following
"employees", insert "and prospective employees". On page 5, line
13, delete the sentence beginning with "An employer is not..." On
page 5, line 28, following "by the", delete "United States
Department of Health and Human Services", insert "Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). On page 5,
line 29, following "American Pathologists", insert ", American
Association of Clinical Chemists". On page 5, line 31, following
"use of different", delete "chemical", insert "analytical", On
page 6, line 2, before "chromatography mass spectrometry.", insert
"gas".
MR. LOGAN said that employers also pay for pre-employment testing.
He said he contacted the National Institute of Drug Free Work
Places and discovered that this is a common policy. In many states
the employer pays for pre-employment testing. There is now
language where the employer pays for employee testing. What
Amendment 5 does is adds prospective employees.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he felt this bill interfered with the
constitutional provision of not incriminating oneself and illegal
search and seizure.
MR. LOGAN said this amendment would not require the employee to pay
for the testing. He said line 28 refers to the labs which are
doing the actual testing. The highest level is a SAMHSA certified
laboratory. He clarified that SAMHSA is located within the United
States Department of Health and Human Services, but it was
suggested that leaving in the name of the federal department in
this language would be confusing.
Number 672
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG expressed concern about putting an acronym in
statute. He offered a amendment to the amendment to delete,
"SAMHSA" from Amendment 5 on line 10.
Number 718
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented that the federal government has been
known to change these things around and perhaps something could be
added to indicate what the intent is so that it would not have to
be revised.
Number 734
MR. LOGAN stated that SAMHSA is a fairly new name of an older
organization. The bill drafter's has explained that these name
changes are dealt with in what is known as a "revisor's bill."
This is legislation coming from the revisor of statutes when there
are federal name changes. A revisor's bill goes through the
legislature to clean up these kinds of things. In order to make
sure that the laboratory testing the employee's sample is of the
highest certification, he feels it would be good to keep this
language.
MR. LOGAN referred to page 5, line 29, and said there are a number
of groups within the College of American Pathologists. The group
that is the most qualified to do drug and alcohol testing is the
American Association of Clinical Chemists.
Number 832
MR. LOGAN referred to line 31 and said after there has been a
positive drug test that test has to be confirmed. The confirmation
must be by use of a different process. The bill currently says,
"chemical process." He said he would like to change that to
"analytical process." The reason is that the first test was a
chemical test. There is some fear that if the second test is also
a chemical test, you could get the same result. The next amendment
actually goes to the top of page 6, where it says, "The second or
confirmatory drug test shall be a chromatography mass
spectrometry." That should be changed to read "gas
chromatography," which is not a chemical process at all, but a
process where there is a molecular breakdown.
Number 900
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 5.
Number 917
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS objected for a question. On page 5, line
13, the deletion of the sentence "An employer is not required to
pay the cost of drug testing for prospective employees." He said
he had thought that if a prospective employee tested negative, then
the employer might be willing to pay for the test. Over the last
year, there have been several times where employees have quit their
jobs because they feel it is an infringement on their rights to
have this type of testing. He said he doesn't think he would pay
to prove to a prospective employer that he doesn't take drugs.
Number 994
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the sponsor's opinion on his suggestion of
not deleting the sentence starting on page 5, line 13, but deleting
the word, "not".
Number 1037
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that taking out the "not" would
require employers to pay for the tests.
Number 1064
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that if the employer is going to mandate
a drug test then he should pay for it.
Number 1112
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated he agrees to this change.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he agrees with the chair.
Number 1134
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to line 11 and said the mandate is there
that they would pay for the tests.
Number 1151
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said eliminating "not" essentially commits
the small businesses, if they want to have a drug free employee to
pay for the test.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said the bill will give businesses a release of
liability which defers the disadvantage of paying for the testing.
Number 1265
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "There is a motion on the table to move
Amendment 5."
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS questioned if it is as amended.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded, "It's amended as to the acronym only,
deletion. Oh, and line 11, yeah. Now I'll leave that alone right
now."
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said, "(Indisc.) the whole sentence."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Because the perspective employee is above
it, Representative Sanders, includes that. I mean that's what it
does, it's already included. We're not changing the meaning there.
We're just changing the drafting (indisc.). By putting the
sentence back and taking that out, it would just change the
drafting, it wouldn't change the meaning. Are you with me?"
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said, "So if you pass the amendment you are
putting the sentence back - taking the `not' out. Is that what
you're saying?"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "We're taking the whole sentence out, but
it has the same effect because a perspective employer is above the
-- requires the employer shall pay for the entire actual cost of
that. On line 2 of the amendment, by inserting prospective
employers after - on line 11."
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS questioned by putting that in there it
covers it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that they are removing the very
last sentence, "An employer is not required to pay the costs of
drug testing of prospective employees."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that hearing no further objections,
Amendment 5, as amended, was adopted.
Number 1322
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 6 for the
purposes of discussion.
Number 1330
MR. LOGAN said Amendment 6, page 3, line 2, following "...is
voluntary.", delete "A person may..." to "...23.10.699." He said
the program is a voluntary program. The bill does not mandate drug
and alcohol testing. He referred to page 3 and said upon reading
the bill, it occurred to the sponsor that it frees any employer
from liability, whether or not they have a drug and alcohol testing
policy.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that he had this same concern. He said
for clarity purposes, the deletion starts on line 2 of page 3 and
goes through line 5. The entire sentence is deleted.
Number 1441
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reiterated the motion to adopt Amendment 6.
Hearing no objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
Number 1462
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated a potential conflict. He informed the
committee he and his wife are major shareholders in a corporation
that owns a medical practice where class 3 and class 4 controlled
substances are dispensed as well as constituting a family practice
where drug testing is done.
Number 1542
JOHN WHEATLEY, Vice President of Policy, Support Industry Alliance,
testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. The Alliance has
over 300 member companies and individuals participating in
petroleum mining and resource development in the state of Alaska.
He was in support of HB 207. The Support Industry Alliance
believes that the legislation will greatly reduce an employer's
liabilities from drug and alcohol testing resulting from a positive
test result. This legislation will help protect the employee by
establishing a company policy and standardized procedures for
testing. This bill is not a mandatory statute, but if an employer
wants the protection of the statute then they may implement the
policy. The Support Industry Alliance supports HB 207; they
believe it is a positive step towards improving the business
environment in the state of Alaska.
Number 1696
RONALD JORDAN, Owner, Medical Specimen Services, Incorporated, was
next to testify via teleconference from Anchorage. He said his
business provides services everything from the oil industry, the
aviation industry to pawn shops and check cashing places. He
stated he is in support of HB 207. He said he likes the amendments
that have included. A uniform drug testing policy in the various
industries will allow the employee to rely on confidentiality and
professionalism all through the industry. The use of a medical
review officer is important to maintain confidentiality. Drug
testing will create more drug free work places in Alaska. This
bill creates some guidelines for implementing a policy. Alaska has
a higher positive rate for illegal use of drugs and a rather high
accident rate. He said he feels that if employers had some true
guidelines with which to work, they would be able to have a drug
free workplace. He said he supports the amendment and the bill.
Number 1918
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Jordan if he has had a chance to speak
to Mr. Logan or see the amendment that was offered in response to
his letter.
MR. JORDAN indicated he spoke to Mr. Logan.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Jordan if the requirement to have a
secondary confirmation test using a gas chromatography mass
spectrometer would create a burden on his business.
MR. JORDAN answered that this test is used with all of their
clients. It is called non-regulated drug testing under the non-
(Indisc.). They use the gas chromatography mass spectrometry
method because it provides absolute answers. Using this test and
a medical review officer benefits both the employer and employee.
Number 1918
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the requirements for laboratory approval
or certification is a burden or if it is an adequate inclusion.
Number 1935
MR. JORDAN stated that the provisions are adequate. The federal
government is looking at non-regulated laboratory certification.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if his laboratory is approved.
MR. JORDAN said that his business does not have a laboratory, they
act as a collection site. The laboratories used are SAMHSA
certified or (Indisc.) by the United States Department of Health
and Human Services.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how many of those laboratories are in
Alaska.
Number 1983
MR. JORDAN answered that there are no SAMHSA certified laboratories
in the state of Alaska.
Number 1992
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that the identification and
transportation of these samples are a very important process.
MR. JORDAN stated this his business works with laboratories from
Seattle to North Carolina. They use express airborne or postal
carriers. There is a chain in custody that follows each and every
specimen. His business works with people on an individual basis.
Number 2077
RANDY RUEDRICH, Chairman, Independent Association of Drilling
Contractors, was next to come before the committee. He stated that
his association has approximately 700 employees in the state. The
association has used a pre-employment and random drug testing
system since the late 1970s. In the mid 1970s, a typical loss time
accident frequency in their industry was 25 people per 100 people
who had to leave the job site because of an injury. By the early
1980s, that number had been reduced to 18 and in 1988, it went
below ten people. Today that accident frequency is 1.6 people.
One of the substantial things the association did was implemented
a drug testing policy which looks after the individual employee,
his fellow employees and the equipment with which they work. These
actions make the business more efficient and improves performance.
The association pays for the drug testing and it produces huge
benefits. The bill, as drafted and amended, is good and will
encourage other employers in the state to do the same thing for
their work place and for their employees.
Number 2208
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if people receiving a certified
driving or professional driving license are required to take a drug
and alcohol test.
Number 2230
MR. RUEDRICH said that requirement would be outside the realm of
his association's employees.
Number 2256
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if people who operate heavy equipment,
such as crane operators, are required to have physical examinations
and/or drug testing.
MR. RUEDRICH answered yes, to the extent that some of the companies
which assist his business in moving equipment and rig moving do
have the same type of requirements. Essentially, everyone on the
job site has been subject to two, relatively rigorous, random
tests.
Number 2316
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that CSHB 207(L&C) provides for both
adverse employer action and counseling\rehabilitation for
employees. He asked what his association did when someone was
found to have a problem.
Number 2353
MR. RUEDRICH explained that if it is a first time event, after they
are discharged from employment, the former employee is allowed to
participate on a partially funded rehabilitation program and are
eligible for rehire after their termination time has ended. The
length of termination depends on the severity of their
rehabilitation requirements. He said there is a zero tolerance on
employment but there is an opportunity to rehabilitate and return.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how successful this program is.
MR. RUEDRICH could not speak on behalf of the whole association.
He said a number of employees have come back and have done quite
well. The association views it as a positive expenditure of funds
to include this in their medical insurance program.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this includes alcohol testing.
MR. RUEDRICH stated that any alcohol impairment on the job takes an
employee off the payroll for a minimum of six months.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about hangovers.
MR. RUEDRICH answered that, if it was noticeable, they could not go
to work. On the North Slope, the employees live in camps where
alcohol is not allowed.
TAPE 97-34, SIDE A
Number 0000
MATTHEW FAGNANI, President of Allvest Laboratories, a subsidiary of
NANA Development Corporation, came before the committee. He said
drug testing began as a result of an train crash in 1987.
Following that accident, the Conrail brakeman and engineer both
tested positive for marijuana use. A coalition was formed, due to
public demand, which led to Senator Holling and Senator Danforth
submitting a bill. This bill mandated drug testing of all
Department of Transportation industry employees in safety sensitive
positions. Pre-employment testing, post accident testing,
reasonable cause testing, random, follow-up and return to duty
testing are required for the trucking, pipelines, airlines,
railroads, marine and nuclear industries.
MR. FAGNANI stated that the next major change to occur to this bill
came in 1991, when Congress approved the Omnibus Employee Testing
Act. This act required the Department of Transportation to propose
additional regulations, including the testing of alcohol and who
would be tested under this regulation. This act resulted in an
additional 7 million transportation workers nationwide being
included in the mandatory drug testing.
MR. FAGNANI said the omnibus act mandated the inclusion of
intrastate commercial driver's license operators, school bus
drivers, state and municipal commercial driver's license holders,
which include truck drivers and grader crews, and community
activity bus drivers. According to the Alaska Department of Labor,
as of July of 1993, Alaska had 599,200 residents. Out of that
total, 277,991 were currently employed and over 53,000 Alaskans are
mandated to test through the federal requirements. He stated that
19 percent of our employed population is in mandatory drug and
alcohol testing programs by the federal government, or 8.8 percent
of the total state population. This information does not include
all of the non-regulated industries which have chosen to test such
as hotels, ski resorts, pawn shops and gas stations. Many Alaskan
companies have realized the benefits of drug testing. Drug testing
will help safety, employee productivity and job efficiency.
MR. FAGNANI stated that according to the national institute on drug
abuse, 10 percent or 23 million Americans are abusing drugs, 6
million use cocaine, 10 percent to 15 percent of all highway
fatalities involve drug use and an employee who uses drugs is 3.6
times more likely to be involved in a near miss or accident while
on the job. The most recent U.S. household survey, conducted by
the Clinton Administration, showed that teen marijuana use was on
the rise. Alcohol and drug testing in the work place is here to
stay. As testing becomes more prevalent in the work place, it is
very important that companies do it right.
MR. FAGNANI said he supports the legislation. He said the testing
criteria has come so far that we don't have to be afraid of false
positive tests. The laboratory that Allvest uses has conducted 2.5
million tests since 1995, and has not had a false positive test.
He said the screening is done by an antibody, antigen reaction and
then there is the gas chromatography mass spectrometer which is a
physical principle test - a molecular test, which gives a
fingerprint of the drug that tests positive. The use of the
physician helps insulate any possible problems. The technology is
there to assure employers and employees that the testing is done
right.
MR. FAGNANI stated that this bill sets out policy. He said he
knows of several customers who have been sued by their employees.
The cases rarely, if ever, get to court. Yet an employee can
pursue this case to the Alaska Supreme Court and then the companies
are forced to pursue it as well while expending a large amount of
resources. This bill sets up a policy which employers can follow
and protects the employee by: using a SAMHSA certified laboratory,
having collection procedures which are spelled out and understood,
using a medical review officer to review results and then advising
the employee of the policy.
Number 0599
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if litigation has been raised concerning
the constitutionality of drug testing policies.
Number 0624
MR. FAGNANI answered that this issue has been addressed at the
federal level. In each and every case, drug testing has withheld
the court's scrutiny. In Alaska, there have been two decisions,
Ludke v. Neighbors Drilling and the ERA case. In Alaska, private
employers are allowed to test based on a safety sensitive need.
The public employees have a different requirement. He said there
are several providers of this type of testing and two are in
Fairbanks, four or five are in Anchorage and countless national
labs competing for the marketplace.
Number 0718
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this bill is a substantial improvement
over the previous bill, HB 522.
MR. FAGNANI stated that it is an improved version. He noted the
inclusion of collective bargaining.
Number 0787
BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS, Director of Legislative and Government
Affairs, Teamsters Local 959, stated that her union represents
about 6,000 members. They have existing collective bargaining
agreements throughout the state with various employers with
attached drug and alcohol testing policies. She stated that every
truck driver has been tested. This bill grants limited immunity
and her union is concerned, from a legal perspective, that the
employee would still have the right to sue if they believed that
there were violated provisions. She questioned who would make the
decision whether or not the employer followed a provision in the
collective bargaining agreement. She said, as a collective
bargaining participant, there is an ability to file a grievance and
go through an arbitration process. A neutral third party reviews
the information and makes a decision based on information brought
from both sides. She questioned who made the determination that
the employer could not be sued.
Number 0979
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS said she wasn't in attendance to argue against
drug testing because her industry is heavily regulated. They
represent truck drivers, hospital workers and members of the
airline industry. She said her union has a lot of unanswered
questions. She referred to Sections 23.10.600 and 23.10,610, which
covers the limited immunity provisions for an employer who decides
to participate or implements a drug and alcohol testing program.
A list of concerns and issues should be addressed in an employer's
drug testing policy. Under a collective bargaining agreement,
months are spent negotiating what those provisions are.
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS said she has heard that this is an attempt to
legislate the policies and procedures that employers are going to
implement so that everybody is testing in the same or in a similar
manner. She stated there are drug testing policies that are
applicable to each one of the employers and the particular industry
with which they are dealing. Some are on a random testing basis
and are private employer representatives, this is completely
different from the public sector. This bill seems to cover both
the public and private sector employers. There are certain
constitutional rights, from a public employee perspective, which
need to be addressed as the bill goes through the process. She
stated that her union also represents employees in the public
sector where there is drug and alcohol testing provisions in those
labor agreements.
Number 1166
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS asked why the legislature didn't include a
provision in the tort reform bill which would state that employers
can't be sued by employees because they enact a drug or alcohol
testing program if they think an employer should be immune from a
libel suit if they have done everything that they are alleged to do
under that policy. The issues around drug testing are going to
involve the drug testing company themselves. Theoretically, this
bill could be separated. Under 23.10.600 (d) and 23.10.610, if
there was non-conformance with the particular requirements, then it
would allow the employee to sue. A higher court could rule that
this particular law was not violated and, therefore, there was not
standing to the employee's lawsuit.
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS said to craft a bill under the guise that the
employer is going to be immune from those lawsuits creates concern.
She questioned what would happen if there was no collective
bargaining agreement in place. The employer could negotiate to
impasse the collective bargaining agreement with the exception of
this particular drug and alcohol testing program. The employer
then implements its own particular program to garner this
particular immunity. She questioned whether taking out this
impasse provision dissolves this particular legal state requirement
to craft drug and alcohol testing language. If the legislature or
state government is going to start drafting drug testing policies,
then isn't it the responsibility of the employers, as well as those
who participate in a collective bargaining agreement, to implement
this type of policy.
Number 1435
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the provision on page 7, 23.10.670,
which says that even if the collective bargaining agreement is not
consistent with CSHB 207(L&C) as the employer would still get the
full benefits of the bill.
Number 1481
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS stated that this area of concern has been raised
by her attorney. The attorney received a faxed copy of the bill
and has not had the opportunity to ascertain the impact of the drug
and alcohol testing program on those existing collective bargaining
agreements. The language of the section, referred to by the chair,
does not have language to gain that benefit.
Number 1522
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS said a reference should be made to employee
notification of what they are being tested for when they take the
test if the drug and alcohol testing program reference is going to
remain in the bill. She said the levels are set by federal
regulations. The lack of reference to the testing level could
result in a zero tolerance. She said she is happy with the
inclusion of a medical review officer who would interpret those
results and would be in a position to prevent any potential
violations of confidential information. The information would be
limited to those individuals with a need to know. The bill also
addresses reasonable suspicion, but does not define what
constitutes reasonable suspicion. The bill does not address the
training under the federal rules or regulations. A supervisor is
required to be trained to detect or to recognize reasonable
suspicion or situations on the job which might cause an employee to
be tested.
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS concluded that the union is a strong supporter of
a drug and alcohol free workplace. This testing has had a positive
impact on those work situations. She said drug testing is not new
and she wants to assure the committee that they are not opposed.
Ms. Huff-Tuckness said they felt serious consideration should be
given to the true intent of this bill and the impact that it will
have on every public and private sector employer in Alaska.
Number 1740
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if someone, from her perspective, would
be coming forward with specific recommendations.
Number 1765
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS informed the committee she has discussed some of
these issues with Mr. Logan. The direction of the bill is a
concern from a legal perspective. She said her attorney has raised
some concerns regarding the impact on the public and private sector
employees due to the constitutional differences. She requested
that more time be spent on this in light of some of the substantial
changes which have been made from the previous bill, HB 522.
Number 1814
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if she understood the employer concern
over arbitrary lawsuits. He discussed the hardship on businesses.
He said he feels that something needs to be put in place which
shows that if a business presented a good faith effort, then they
should have a limited sense of liability.
Number 1881
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS said she feels there had been an effort to limit
these lawsuits. She said if this immunity is the intent of CSHB
207(L&C), then some focus should be put on that. The attorney is
concerned that the employer might not be completely protected. If
questions come up regarding the drug and alcohol testing then it is
addressed in the collective bargaining agreement. Only five or six
cases have been raised regarding this particular area.
Number 1954
PAM La BOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, stated
that her organization is in support of this bill and the amendments
which have been adopted. She noted they have submitted a letter
located in the committee files.
Number 1996
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS expressed a desire to hold the bill over.
He said he is not opposed to the bill or its intent. He said he
wants to hold it over in order to ascertain if this bill does what
it proposes to do in the sponsor statement.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Fagnani why they didn't test blood.
MR. FAGNANI said the urine test is much more sensitive and less
intrusive.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that CSHB 207(L&C) would be held over.
HB 218 - OMNIBUS INSURANCE REFORM
Number 2086
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would address HB 218,
"An Act relating to regulation and examination of insurers and
insurance agents; relating to kinds of insurance; relating to
payment of insurance taxes and to required insurance reserves;
relating to insurance policies; relating to regulation of capital,
surplus, and investments by insurers; relating to hospital and
medical service corporations; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2093
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute, dated 4/3/97, Version E, for the purpose of
discussion.
Number 2116
MARIANNE BURKE, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, came before the committee. She
said the purpose of CSHB 218 is to bring some modernization to some
of the provisions, to clarify existing sections and to remove some
barriers that had been inadvertently included in Title 21 over the
years. This would even the playing field for the people doing
business in the state. She said the most significant issue has
resulted in a positive fiscal note of $485,000 per year. Ms. Burke
said, "This is the result of asking for legislation that would
allow us to collect the premium tax on insurance premiums on a
quarterly basis rather than on a yearly basis. We have received no
objection from anyone on this matter and, in fact, we've been told
it was inevitable and they were just waiting to when Alaska would
switch to quarterly basis. I'd be happy to go into any detail if
this committee would like at this time or..."
Number 2173
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Burke to point out anything that might
generate any controversy.
MS. BURKE said "We have received comments from the representative
agency for 60 percent of the health and life insurers and they are
in support of this and in fact the committee substitute is to
recognize their minor points. I am not aware of any controversial
sections at this time -- potentially controversial sections of
collection premium tax which we have canvased our jurors and they
are reluctant to give up their money or leave, but they recognized
it's necessary."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Burke if he is correct in saying the
department probably won't be bringing up another omnibus bill next
session.
MS. BURKE said that is a fair statement.
Number 2248
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called for an at-ease at 5:44 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 5:47 p.m.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated to Ms. Burke that the committee has not
received any letters of support or opposition to the bill at this
time.
Number 2266
MS. BURKE said, "To the best of my knowledge, the only letter that
has been received was received on the Senate side from the
organization that I referred to that represents 60 percent of the
life and health writers. And it states, and I will provide this
committee a copy of that letter, that if the minor tweaks are
incorporated here and we're made, that they support this bill."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated CSHB 218(L&C) would be held.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2296
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Committee
meeting at 5:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|