01/23/2002 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 23, 2002
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Hayes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 245
"An Act relating to marital and family therapists."
- MOVED CSHB 245(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 12
Relating to the preservation of employment opportunities for
United States longshoremen with respect to unloading and loading
of foreign vessels.
- MOVED HCR 12 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 245
SHORT TITLE:MARITAL & FAMILY THERAPISTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WILSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/12/01 0988 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/12/01 0988 (H) L&C, FIN
01/23/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HCR 12
SHORT TITLE:FOREIGN SHIPS AND U.S. LONGSHOREMEN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MOSES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/26/01 0728 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/26/01 0728 (H) L&C
01/23/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 245.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on licensing of
Marital and Family Therapists.
MERCY DENNIS, Former Chair
Board of Marriage and Family Therapy
[No address provided]
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 245.
LARRY HOLMAN, President
Alaska Division of Marriage and Family Therapy
[No address provided]
POSITION STATEMENT:
TIM BENINTENDI, Aide
to REPRESENTATIVE Carl Moses
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 500
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HCR 12 on behalf of
Representative Carl Moses, prime sponsor.
PETE HENDRICKSON, Longshoreman
[No address provided]
Dutch Harbor, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 12 as Alaskan
representative to the international executive board,
International Longshore and Warehouse Union.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-03, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. Representatives
Crawford, Halcro, Meyer, Murkowski, and Kott were present at the
call to order. Representative Rokeberg arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 245-MARITAL & FAMILY THERAPISTS
Number 0086
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 245, "An Act relating to marital and family
therapists."
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature,
testifying as the sponsor of HB 245, explained that she was
submitting HB 245 at the request of the Association of Marital
and Family Therapists. Basically the bill brings the standards
for Marital and Family Therapists (MFTs) up to the same
standards as those of the other mental health care professionals
in the state as well as to those of the National Association of
Marital and Family Therapists. In addition, the state
association has included a provision related to consumer
protection. She noted that there were people on the
teleconference line and in the room who could provide additional
information and answer questions. House Bill 245
has a zero fiscal note.
Number 0288
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD inquired as to what an MFT is. It
seemed to him that licensed clinical social workers, ministers,
and marriage counselors do the same type of work, and he
wondered if all of those people would be affected by HB 245.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that a licensed MFT has to go
through specific training and have 1,500 hours of experience.
She deferred to Catherine Reardon, of the Division of
Occupational Licensing, to provide further detail.
Number 0271
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development, informed the
committee that her division is involved in licensing MFTs. The
affected individuals are already licensed, and this bill merely
modifies the statutes that govern how those professionals do
their work, including the grounds for disciplinary action and
public protection features of the law. Therefore, this bill
doesn't expand licensure requirements or change any limitations
on other professionals such as those mentioned by Representative
Crawford. Several behavioral health and mental health
professions are licensed through the division, including social
workers, the psychologists, the licensed professional
counselors, MFTs, psychiatrists, and medical doctors [MDs] who
are regulated by the medical board as well as other MDs.
MS. REARDON pointed out that MFTs and professional counselors
fall under "title restriction" laws, which means it is not
against the law to engage in the activities of a MFT or
professional counselor without a license. However, it is
illegal to call yourself a "licensed marriage and family
therapist" or a "licensed professional counselor" without,
indeed, holding that license, which is different from most of
the state's licensing laws. Therefore, these laws do not
impinge on the ability of pastoral counselors or anyone else to
assist families if those families so choose.
MS. REARDON said she thinks there are several reasons for
licensure of MFTs. It allows those consumers who are interested
to know that going to a licensed MFT means they are going to a
person who has had specific academic training and experience.
Also, it opens up the possibility, although not the promise,
that the provider's services might qualify for insurance
coverage. It is rare for an insurance company to cover
treatment by a person who is not licensed by the state, she
explained.
Number 0625
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to the portion of Section 2 that
requires the therapist to submit to a reasonable physical and
mental examination in order to determine the therapist's
capacity to practice. She asked why it would be necessary for a
MFT to have the physical capacity to practice. How would a
physical disability, such as being in a wheelchair, hinder a
person's ability to practice as a therapist, she wondered.
MS. REARDON answered that she did not think that type of
disability would be a hindrance. She pointed out that the
proposed statutory language says, "If the board has credible
evidence sufficient to conclude that the physical capacity is at
issue," the board could order this examination. The language
mimics another mental health statute, and she thought that is
probably why HB 245 is worded in that way. However, she pointed
out, sometimes mental issues have physical origins, such as the
development of Alzheimer's disease.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI responded that she thought it was appropriate to
give the board the discretion to look at that evidence [of
physical capacity] and whether that might be compromising the
therapist's ability to practice. She then asked, "How do we
define 'healing arts'?" [Page 4, line 2].
MS. REARDON recalled that the term was defined in statute. In
regard to the previous question [about physical capacity], Ms.
Reardon noted that Mercy Dennis of the American Family Therapy
Board may have something to say about whether the board would
have any concern about removal of the term "physical."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI directed attention to page 3, and pointed out
the requirements that this individual practice within three
years of the his/her application. "What was the reason for
that," she asked.
MS. REARDON deferred to association representatives because the
association had proposed the changes.
Number 952
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted that the legislative audit division
basically suggested that the legislature look at combining the
Board Of Professional Counselors and the Board of MFTs. He
asked Ms. Reardon to comment on that.
MS. REARDON said that although she could, she was under the
impression that the Board of Professional Counselors sunset
extension legislation may be considered by this committee next
week and would offer another forum for discussing the topic.
She informed the committee that the boards have discussed the
merger, but don't support it. She noted that there is an issue
of money, as one board is in the red and the other is in the
black.
Number 1075
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to page 3, Section 4, which
discusses communications with law enforcement. He asked what
has been done up until now.
MS. REARDON replied that it is probably something that each
therapist has to wrestle with individually, and "having the
assurance that it is an OK thing to do would probably be a great
relief to them."
Number 1167
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, in regard to the aforementioned merger,
asked how many people would be impacted.
MS. REARDON informed the committee that at the beginning of the
current fiscal year, there were 100 licensees in the MFT program
and 327 licensed professional counselors. In further response
to Representative Meyer, Ms. Reardon said she didn't know
whether most of the 100 MFTs were from Anchorage, but [could
provide that information].
Number 1218
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT returned to the fiscal issue and inquired as
to which group was operating in the red and which in the black.
He wondered if consolidation might result in a be better fiscal
position.
MS. REARDON explained that the MFTs have a deficit and the
professional counselors have a significant surplus. However,
the professional counselors have only been licensed for about
two years. During that two years, there have not been any
significant investigations with the associated expert witness
and legal costs [associated with an expensive disciplinary
case], whereas the MFTs have. The MFTs' deficit is directly
related to an expensive [disciplinary case] like that."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how long one could operate in the red.
He wondered if it would be possible to review their fees and
adjust them upward.
MS. REARDON said that is what the division does. By regulation,
the division raises and lowers fees, attempting to have each
program break even. The fees for the MFTs are significantly
higher than for professional counselors in an attempt to
overcome the deficit. "Our basic system is to try to give
programs two license cycles -- four years -- to pay back
deficits or consume surpluses...," she explained. She noted
that there is a bit of a spiral problem to consider, in that
when licensing fees are very high, fewer people choose to renew,
thus shrinking the pool of payers.
Number 1450
MERCY DENNIS, Former Chair, Board of Marriage and Family
Therapy, testified by teleconference. She began by clarifying
that she was no longer a board member, as her term had ended,
but that she had served seven years. She explained that the
request for the changes [in HB 245] came after several years'
work by a task force made up of psychologists, social workers,
and MFTs, members of the state board, and members of the
professional associations. The purpose was to bring the Alaska
statutes in all professions up to date in relation to other
states, as well as bringing each profession more parity within
the state. She turned to the wording that the MFTs used
relating to the physical and mental examinations. "That whole
section was taken straight out of what is already in the
psychology statutes" in the interests of parity among the
professions, she said.
Number 1582
CHAIR MURKOWSKI returned to Representative Halcro's question
concerning Section 4(a)(5).
MS. DENNIS, in regard to what was done before, explained that
each therapist did what he/she thought was ethical and proper.
"Taking the risk that they could be breaking privileged
communication as confidential communication, as they see it,"
she pointed out. Therefore, [the language in Section 4(a)(5)]
attempts to protect the professional. Ms. Dennis recalled that
this issue had been discussed in the social work field as well.
Again, this is an attempt to get Alaska caught up with the rest
of the country.
Number 1631
CHAIR MURKOWSKI posed a scenario in which a client, a wife, is
fearful of a threat by her husband. The [MFT] feels that the
threat is a serious, imminent threat of physical harm. If this
provision were passed, then the [MFT] has the ability to notify
concern of the imminent threat. Chair Murkowski inquired as to
what happens if [the MFT] doesn't notify [law enforcement] and
there is an incident. Is there an obligation or liability on
the therapists for failure to inform, she asked.
MS. DENNIS said that she didn't read Section 4(a)(5) that way.
As a therapist, Ms. Dennis specified that she would have to hear
the threat from the client. For example, she would have to have
a husband in the office saying that he has a gun in his car and
intends to kill his wife.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI related her understanding of Section 4(a)(5) in
that the threat didn't have to come directly from [the client].
The language refers to "a communication to a potential victim
... where a threat ... has been made by a client". Therefore,
she read the language to mean that the wife could tell the
therapist that she is fearful for her life and identify the fear
as coming from her husband. However, she understood Ms. Dennis
to mean that the [therapist] would have to hear it from the
husband.
MS. DENNIS addressed the situation posed by Chair Murkowski.
She said that in such a situation she may suggest that the wife
make a call from the therapist's office, so that the wife
reports the threat, or that the wife has a safe plan. Ms.
Dennis emphasized that she would address the wife's safety with
the wife.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that the language would need to be
reviewed because the language, as she reads it, doesn't require
that the communication come from the individual making the
threat.
MS. DENNIS commented that the language could be returned to the
legal department. She offered to find out from where the
language originated.
Number 1798
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to Section 5(8) regarding sexual
misconduct with a client. That provision includes a two year
period during which the therapist couldn't engage in any sexual
contact with the person [client]. She assumed that this time
period is similar to that of other professionals.
MS. DENNIS answered that the language is similar to that
regarding psychologists in Alaska.
Number 1856
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON referred to page 3, line 17, subsection
(a), and asked if that language answers some of Chair
Murkowski's question.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI clarified her concern that Ms. Dennis wouldn't
reveal her communication [of a threat] unless the communication
came from the person making the threat. However, the language
merely says "a communication to a potential victim, but not
necessarily a direct communication from the would-be perpetrator
to the therapist." Therefore, again, the wording should be
reviewed to ensure that it is as the board desires.
Number 1908
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO related his understanding that "a
communication" would come from the MFT, not from the victim. He
felt that the language made sense.
MS. DENNIS clarified that the idea is to provide protection to
the therapist [who communicates the threat expressed by the
client to law enforcement]. In closing, Ms. Dennis remarked
that the profession views HB 245 as a housekeeping measure.
Number 2014
LARRY HOLMAN, President, Alaska Division of Marriage and Family
Therapy, testified via teleconference. Mr. Holman echoed Ms.
Dennis' testimony characterizing [HB 245] as an attempt to bring
[Alaska's] MFT standards up to those of the other mental health
standards of the state as well as nationwide. In regard to
communicating the potential for serious physical harm, Mr.
Holman felt that it's a common misconception by probably all
therapists that there has been a law to [communicate a potential
threat to law enforcement]. This [HB 245] probably confirms
what is already being done, for the most part. Mr. Holman said
that he didn't view Section 5 as problematic. However, he
acknowledged the difficulty in husband-wife situations in which
there is often hearsay. [The therapist] walks a fine line in
this area. He agreed with Ms. Dennis' earlier statement that
the threat would have to come from a client about their
intention to harm someone.
MR. HOLMAN turned to the sexual misconduct issue. He remarked
that the sexual misconduct issue has been one of the most
problematic areas for all mental health professions, and
therefore a firm limit is established [in HB 245]. [The
therapist] is in the position of having a different sort of
relationship in that the clients are oftentimes quite
vulnerable. Although the two-year limit is a bit arbitrary, the
limit needs to be a fairly long time.
Number 2163
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that after reading Section 4(a)(5)
again, it does make sense. She then turned to Section 4(a)(6),
which discuss unprofessional or unlawful conduct in the
provision of mental health services. She inquired as to how one
would define unprofessional conduct.
MR. HOLMAN pointed out that MFTs have a code of ethics.
Therefore, if the [action] is in violation of the code of
ethics, then it would be unprofessional. He related his belief
that statute says that if [MFTs] don't follow the American
Association of Marriage and Family Therapists' code of ethics,
then the therapist could be disciplined.
Number 2240
MS. REARDON returned to the healing arts matter. In regard to
the reference to "practitioner of the healing arts" on page 4,
line 2, Ms. Reardon pointed out that there is not a definition
of such in the Title 8 statutes. Therefore, that term could be
defined through regulations of the board. However, that term is
found in Title 47, the statutes regarding obligations to report
potential child abuse. She explained, "Practitioners of the
healing arts have to report, and so there's the definition in
that statute of what that covers." Ms. Reardon felt that
replacing the language ["practitioner of the healing arts"] with
"another licensed professional" would probably read [and apply]
just as well.
MS. REARDON, in response to Chair Murkowski's question regarding
how to define unprofessional conduct, said that the board has
adopted a code of ethics, and therefore she viewed that [code of
ethics] as having the force of law. Therefore, if one violates
the code of ethics, she said she would assert that the
individual is engaging in unlawful conduct. Ms. Reardon agreed
with Mr. Holman's earlier comments regarding this matter. She
pointed out that people may also be reporting conduct of another
health care or mental health care professional in this statute.
Therefore, it could be a professional that isn't governed by the
profession of marriage and family therapists' code of ethics.
Ms. Reardon noted that removal of "unprofessional" wouldn't
bother her.
Number 2374
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if the committee wanted to delete
"unprofessional" from the text on page 4, lines 2 and 6.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that she didn't really have a problem
with deleting the term "unprofessional", although she noted that
"they could be two different things."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI agreed with Representative Wilson, and remarked
that it is a gray area.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON deferred to the organizations on this
matter.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked, "What's the harm in leaving it in?
From what I see, I don't see that it hurts much to keep it in."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that the term "unprofessional"
is fairly vague, and therefore referring to the code of ethics
would add some clarity.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI recalled testimony that this [provision] refers
to a national standard, not just a code of ethics. She
commented that perhaps the term "unprofessional" should be left
in. However, she agreed with the earlier suggestion that
deleting the "healing arts" reference would be helpful.
TAPE 02-3, SIDE B
MS. REARDON said, "...restricted to professionals licensed by
the State of Alaska, not by the United States government ... or
the Department of Health & Social Services ...." If the
language referred to "licensed professional" and wasn't
restricted to this title, then it would [refer] to an individual
that was licensed by any jurisdiction, which may be better.
MS. REARDON clarified that she was being "nit-picky" because
this provision allows MFTs to break client confidentiality in
order to report on other MFTs, as well as any other type of
health care professional. The language could refer to "another
licensed professional" or "another professional licensed under
this title". "It just depends whether you want to restrict it
to Title 8 or not, ... whether you want to allow for MFTs to
participate in complaints against people licensed by other
states ... or national entities." she said.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired as to the intent of the board in
including it.
MS. REARDON suspected that this degree of detail hasn't been
discussed.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether there had been discussion
regarding how broadly this should be interpreted. Hearing no
responses, Chair Murkowski said she read the provision as being
confined within Title 8. Therefore, she recommended that on
page 4, line 1, before "licensed", insert "professional under
this title" and on line 2, delete "practitioner of the healing
arts".
MS. DENNIS related her belief that the intent of the committee
that drafted this was that it cover any other person in the
health care profession.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI interpreted Ms. Dennis to mean, then, that she
is suggesting that the provision not be limited to those
licensed under Title 8, but that it refer to any licensed
professional.
MS. DENNIS asked if everyone that is licensed in the state is
licensed under Title 8.
MS. REARDON explained that doctors, dentists, nurses, and
chiropractors are all [licensed] under Title 8. There are
various professions that aren't licensed under Title 8, although
Title 8 is fairly inclusive. She noted that Title 8 included
physical occupational therapists, acupuncturists, and
naturopaths. However, those people licensed under the federal
government or by other departments [than the Division of
Occupational Licensing, DCED,] wouldn't be under Title 8.
MS. DENNIS said, "We definitely did have the intent of those
licensed in the State of Alaska, and if that's all Title 8 then
-- not by the State of Alaska maybe I should say."
MS. REARDON remarked that she felt comfortable that at least 95
percent of health care professionals are licensed in Title 8.
However, she noted that someone working in a hospital may be
licensed by another state agency that she isn't aware of.
MS. DENNIS said, "In that case, that certainly does meet the
intent of the writing."
Number 2193
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she understood that to be an acceptance of
the language. Chair Murkowski moved the following conceptual
amendment:
Page 4, line 1, before "licensed"
Insert "professional"
Page 4, line 2
Delete "practitioner of the healing arts".
Therefore the language would, in part read:
"(6) a communication that indicates that another
professional licensed under this title has committed
an act of unprofessional or unlawful conduct ..."
There being no objection, the conceptual amendment was adopted.
Number 2153
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to report HB 245, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 245(L&C) was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HCR 12-FOREIGN SHIPS AND U.S. LONGSHOREMEN
Number 2130
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 12, Relating to the
preservation of employment opportunities for United States
longshoremen with respect to unloading and loading of foreign
vessels.
Number 2119
TIM BENINTENDI, Staff to Representative Carl Moses, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor of HCR 12, came forward to testify. He
said HCR 12 addresses a longstanding and unresolved national
labor issue that affects Alaskans, in that Alaskan and American
longshoremen stand idle while foreign ships reflag their cargo
vessels when they are entering American ports in order to use
their own crews to load and unload ships.
MR. BENINTENDI said that [international] reciprocity agreements,
exceptions to them, enforcement activity, and the practice of
reflagging cargo vessels to skirt the intention of the United
States law have been the subject of considerable and unresolved
political activity in Washington, D.C., for a number of years.
He said HCR 12 would petition Congress and the State Department
to close the loopholes exploited by reflagging. To more fully
reveal the scope of the problem, he wished to introduce Pete
Hendrickson, a longshoreman from Dutch Harbor, to answer
questions and provide background.
Number 2046
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Benintendi about the first "WHEREAS"
in HCR 12, which appeared to highlight the port of Dutch Harbor.
She asked why it was necessary to emphasize that port.
MR. BENINTENDI explained that the bulk of the longshoring
activity on these freighters, mostly tramp steamers, occurs in
Dutch Harbor. There is a slight manifestation of the problem in
Kodiak and, to an even slighter degree, in Seward. Therefore,
the emphasis is on the port of Dutch Harbor. However, the other
two ports would not be beyond the realm of this issue, he added.
He further noted that this resolution and this problem are not
related to cruise ships.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked him to elaborate on that. She referred to
two letters to the editor included in the packet, both of which
mention cruise ships.
MR. BENINTENDI said he could not explain those references
because he has understood from the beginning that only cargo
vessels are a problem, not cruise ships.
Number 1958
PETE HENDRICKSON, of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, identified himself
as a longshoreman and a registered member of the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union [ILWU]. He said he is currently
the Alaskan representative to the international executive board
of that union and safety officer for the longshore division of
ILWU Unit 223 in Dutch Harbor. He also is a past president of
the local.
MR. HENDRICKSON said that over the past three years, a large
number of foreign trampers visiting Alaskan waters to load
seafood bound for Europe and Asia have been filing for the
reciprocity exception to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
They can then displace Alaskan longshore workers by using their
own crewmembers to work cargo on the ship side of the loading
operations, he explained. This is accomplished by representing
to the Immigration and Nationality Service that their flag of
registry and majority ownership of the visiting vessel are from
countries that currently qualify for the exception. In virtually
all cases, the vessels in question have changed their flags just
before arrival in order to file for the exception, he said. The
result has been the loss of many thousands of hours of work for
Alaskans.
Number 1862
MR. HENDRICKSON said he thinks the reciprocity exception no
longer serves any useful purpose for the United States, as
American seafarers no longer do any loading elsewhere in the
world. "And as we have seen here in Alaska, all this does is
provide a mechanism by which certain parties can exploit this
exception in order to avoid Alaskan labor," he said.
MR. HENDRICKSON explained that in the early 1990s Congress
created what is known as the Alaska Exception to the Immigration
and Nationality Act, which allows loading work to be done by
foreign crew if Alaskan longshore workers are not available.
This guarantees that the work will always get done, which is
critical to the fishing industry, he stated. Alaska's
Congressional delegation in general, and Senator Ted Stevens in
particular, were instrumental in accomplishing this. Alaskan
longshoremen do not think the reciprocity exception should apply
to Alaska. "The alternative, if we must live with this
exception, is to amend it so that its application is more true
to the original intent, and it cannot be misused as it is
today," he said.
MR. HENDRICKSON said he has been working on the issue for some
time, visiting the U.S. Department of State and Alaska's
Congressional delegation in Washington, D.C., to speak about the
growing problem. Commissioner Ed Flanagan, Alaska Department of
Labor, has also been involved, he reported. He said sponsors of
HCR 12 think the legislature's support of their efforts to
either exempt Alaska or revise the law will be instrumental to
success, "as we continue to work toward a solution to what can
only be called a 'scam.'"
Number 1752
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there is any pending federal
legislation that would address the concerns outlined in HCR 12.
MR. HENDRICKSON replied, "Not at the present time. We are
working in that direction."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if the hope was that if HCR 12
passes, it will be taken to Alaska's congressional delegation.
MR. HENDRICKSON said yes.
Number 1714
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked about the applicability of HCR 12 to
cruise ships.
MR. HENDRICKSON explained that the reciprocity exception does
not speak to cruise ships. He said he thinks it was intended to
address only the handling of cargo.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if it was defined somewhere that this
reciprocity agreement would only relate to cargo vessels.
MR. HENDRICKSON said that is his understanding.
Number 1654
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD observed that a lot of the problem seems
to stem from the reflagging to a "flag of convenience." He
asked about the process and how easy it is to reflag a vessel.
MR. HENDRICKSON suggested that the frequency with which
[reflagging] is done suggests that it cannot be too difficult.
He explained that flags of convenience are prevalent in world
shipping today. "Most ships in the world, regardless of where
they're from and who owns them, are flagged in a handful of
friendly countries with little or no standards for manning,
safety, tax issues, etc.," he said. Ships from all over the
world are being flagged to Panama, Libya, and Cyprus, for
example. "There's apparently a fee that's paid in order to
change flags," he explained, "and sometimes there may be issues
with your insurance company ..., but because we see it happen on
a ... pretty regular basis out here, ... I'd say that it's not
particularly difficult."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that she would like to think that those
flags actually mean something, but that, apparently, they do
not. She asked Mr. Hendrickson if it would be more beneficial
to Alaska and Alaskan workers to exempt them from the
reciprocity exception or simply to repeal the reciprocity
exception. She asked if one was more possible than the other.
MR. HENDRICKSON said he thought that repealing the entire
reciprocity exception throughout the United States would be the
better thing to do, as reciprocity does not appear to be
accomplishing anything for the United States. It would be very
difficult to change the federal law to that extent, he said. He
thought it was more realistic to seek an Alaskan exception
because something similar had been accomplished in the early
1990s as explained earlier. "We think that the process we went
through that time can be gone through again without too much
difficulty to create this second exception," he said.
Number 1395
CHAIR MURKOWSKI commented, "Quite honestly, I can't believe that
these guys get away with what they're doing."
MR. BENINTENDI said that in addition to the obvious labor cost
advantage, there are no standards for training or skill level on
the operation of equipment, and that leads to safety issues.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked the will of the committee on HCR 12.
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report HCR 12 out of the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, HCR 12 was moved out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1291
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|