Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 17
03/30/2005 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB147 | |
| HB180 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 2005
3:24 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 147
"An Act relating to the regulation of insurance, insurance
licensing, surplus lines, insurer deposits, motor vehicle
service contracts, guaranteed automobile protection products,
health discount plans, third-party administrators, self-funded
multiple employer welfare arrangements, and self-funded
governmental plans; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 147(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 180
"An Act relating to a special deposit for workers' compensation
and employers' liability insurers; relating to assigned risk
pools; relating to workers' compensation insurers; stating the
intent of the legislature, and setting out limitations,
concerning the interpretation, construction, and implementation
of workers' compensation laws; relating to the Alaska Workers'
Compensation Board; establishing a division of workers'
compensation within the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, assigning certain Alaska Workers' Compensation
Board functions to the division and the department, and
authorizing the board to delegate administrative and enforcement
duties to the division; establishing a Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; providing for workers' compensation hearing
officers in workers' compensation proceedings; relating to
workers' compensation medical benefits and to charges for and
payment of fees for the medical benefits; relating to agreements
that discharge workers' compensation liability; relating to
workers' compensation awards; relating to reemployment benefits
and job dislocation benefits; relating to coordination of
workers' compensation and certain disability benefits; relating
to division of workers' compensation records; relating to
release of treatment records; relating to an employer's failure
to insure and keep insured or provide security; providing for
appeals from compensation orders; relating to workers'
compensation proceedings; providing for supreme court
jurisdiction of appeals from the Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission; providing for a maximum amount for the cost-of-
living adjustment for workers' compensation benefits; relating
to attorney fees; providing for the department to enter into
contracts with nonprofit organizations to provide information
services and legal representation to injured employees;
providing for administrative penalties for employers uninsured
or without adequate security for workers' compensation; relating
to fraudulent acts or false or misleading statements in workers'
compensation and penalties for the acts or statements; providing
for members of a limited liability company to be included as an
employee for purposes of workers' compensation; establishing a
workers' compensation benefits guaranty fund; relating to the
second injury fund; making conforming amendments; providing for
a study and report by the medical services review committee; and
providing for an effective date."
-HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 147
SHORT TITLE: INSURANCE REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/14/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/05 (H) L&C, FIN
02/23/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/23/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/02/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/02/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/16/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/16/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/18/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/18/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/30/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 180
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS' COMPENSATION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/25/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/05 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
03/09/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/09/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/16/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/16/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/21/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/21/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/22/05 (H) L&C AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/22/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/30/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDA HALL, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions concerning HB 147.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave an analysis of HB 180 and its impact on
the court system.
JOHN BAKER, Builder
Building Specialty Inc
Anchor Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 180.
MARK KLINE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 180.
JOHN NICKS, Rehabilitation Specialist
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 180.
WAYNE STEVENS, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 180.
JERRY FLOCK, Citizen,
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 180.
DON ETHRIDGE, Lobbyist
Alaska AFL-CIO
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 180.
BEVERLY ALECK, Representative
Amchitka Nuclear Workers
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 180.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:24:51 PM. Representatives
Guttenberg, Crawford, Lynn, and Anderson were present at the
call to order. Representatives Kott and Rokeberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 147-INSURANCE
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 147, "An Act relating to the regulation of
insurance, insurance licensing, surplus lines, insurer deposits,
motor vehicle service contracts, guaranteed automobile
protection products, health discount plans, third-party
administrators, self-funded multiple employer welfare
arrangements, and self-funded governmental plans; and providing
for an effective date."
CHAIR ANDERSON moved to adopt CSHB 147, Version G, as the
working document.
3:25:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected and recalled that in the
previous meeting there was a heated discussion online from
people who wanted to talk about workers' compensation and that
he believed that any future meeting would include more public
testimony and the ability to continue discussing the issue.
CHAIR ANDERSON opined that this would be brief.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Version G was before the
committee.
3:26:21 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that the discussion prompted the removal
of the following provisions from the original legislation: page
15, line 6 through page 17, line 25; page 17, line 26 through
page 18, line 3; page 18, lines 4-20, and finally, page 19,
lines 12-15 and lines 20-28.
CHAIR ANDERSON then stated that there were also additions made
to the bill. He pointed out the new Section 3, page 2, line 8
through page 3, line 21, and Section 24 page 25, lines 24-29.
He then stated that this amendment addresses limitations on the
use of owner controlled insurance programs and contractor
controlled insurance programs. All the above-mentioned changes
have been done with the approval of the Division of Insurance,
the bill's sponsor.
LINDA HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community, & Economic Development, indicated that the
two problematic sections were removed. The first one was the
union health trust issue and the other concerned the regulation
authority over promulgation of regulations on guaranteed auto
protection (GAP) and service contracts. She then said that they
also added a section on the rules that govern when owner
controlled insurance programs can be used. She ended by stating
that these changes are not intended to change the divisions
existing statutory authority to regulate in these areas, and she
made it clear that the division has a broad definition of
insurance, and that they have statutory language that could
subject these groups to certain kinds of regulation as it exists
today.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG requested more detail about the
sections that were taken out.
MS. HALL explained that the sections that were taken out were
the provisions that gave authority to promulgate regulations
that look at the GAP products and the service contracts. What
remains are a variety of changes to licensing of producers to
make it a more streamlined process, to clean up the our surplus
lines regulations, to allow the insured deposits to be given to
the guarantee association when that is due.
3:29:47 PM
MS. HALL then asserted that there have been some real abuses of
health care discount plans, and the changes here will give us
the authority to regulate those and it changes how we register
and regulate third party administrators of health insurance
contracts. She ended by stating that the bill also creates some
new definitions.
3:30:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that the changes that have been
discussed are the ones that he wanted to see, however, he stated
that this is a very quick turnaround and he indicated that he
felt that he had not been enough time to read the new CS to
determine if he had any questions. He then said that he had no
disagreements so far.
CHAIR ANDERSON offered to go through all the sections that have
been deleted or abridged.
3:31:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he was currently looking at
Section 3 to determine the changes that have been made.
3:31:36 PM
MS. HALL stated that the additions to Section 3 were the
following: the ability to have owner controlled insurance
program or "wrap up policies", where the owner purchases
liability for the entire crew. However, she indicated that this
ability is being extended to other occupational situations. She
also said that this type of insurance is taking premium volume
from an already fragile market in a state that has very few
insurance companies willing to sell insurance here. She stated
that these contractor insurance packages make it hard to keep
enough premium volume to put together a good package. This has
been the viewpoint of the Division of Insurance since 1995 and
this, she said, is really just the codification of that
viewpoint.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that though she did not know if she
had a real problem with the bill, she did express concern that
this bill has been around since the beginning of the session and
that seemed to her like it was a major issue, based on the
amount of testimony that has been given and the fact that it has
been indicated today that the issue had been tossed around since
1995. She complained that although what was being said today
made sense, the fact that it might very well be passed out today
would not allow other viewpoints to be heard and this was
important to her.
3:34:42 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON indicated that there had already been several
days of testimony on this bill and that the concept is not new,
nor is the idea of amending the bill new at all.
MS. HALL explained that this amendment was given to the
committee at the last meeting and there was tremendous public
testimony. The ideas and amendments were brought forward by the
insurance community in response to the testimony.
3:35:50 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stated for the committee that he did note that he
would be addressing the concerns that were brought up in
testimony and that amendments would be made. He indicated that
to be fair to the legislative process, he felt that ample time
was given to the bill and to the gathering of public testimony,
and that to give any more time would slow the process down and
make it impossible to make a legislative decision.
3:36:41 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON pointed out that there is another committee
through which the public can voice more concern and that it
would be prudent to pass the amendment through today and move
the bill out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report CSHB 147, Version G, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 147(L&C) was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 180-WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 180, "An Act relating to a special deposit for
workers' compensation and employers' liability insurers;
relating to assigned risk pools; relating to workers'
compensation insurers; stating the intent of the legislature,
and setting out limitations, concerning the interpretation,
construction, and implementation of workers' compensation laws;
relating to the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board; establishing
a division of workers' compensation within the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development, assigning certain Alaska
Workers' Compensation Board functions to the division and the
department, and authorizing the board to delegate administrative
and enforcement duties to the division; establishing a Workers'
Compensation Appeals Commission; providing for workers'
compensation hearing officers in workers' compensation
proceedings; relating to workers' compensation medical benefits
and to charges for and payment of fees for the medical benefits;
relating to agreements that discharge workers' compensation
liability; relating to workers' compensation awards; relating to
reemployment benefits and job dislocation benefits; relating to
coordination of workers' compensation and certain disability
benefits; relating to division of workers' compensation records;
relating to release of treatment records; relating to an
employer's failure to insure and keep insured or provide
security; providing for appeals from compensation orders;
relating to workers' compensation proceedings; providing for
supreme court jurisdiction of appeals from the Workers'
Compensation Appeals Commission; providing for a maximum amount
for the cost-of-living adjustment for workers' compensation
benefits; relating to attorney fees; providing for the
department to enter into contracts with nonprofit organizations
to provide information services and legal representation to
injured employees; providing for administrative penalties for
employers uninsured or without adequate security for workers'
compensation; relating to fraudulent acts or false or misleading
statements in workers' compensation and penalties for the acts
or statements; providing for members of a limited liability
company to be included as an employee for purposes of workers'
compensation; establishing a workers' compensation benefits
guaranty fund; relating to the second injury fund; making
conforming amendments; providing for a study and report by the
medical services review committee; and providing for an
effective date."
3:37:24 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that the ad hoc committee was still going
through some negotiations and that it was not his intent to push
this out without some solidarity. Everyone from doctors,
laborers, insurance industry, Department of Insurance, the
governors office, and the Chamber of Commerce, have indicated
measurable interest in the bill. The ad hoc committee bill is
being circulated and is awaiting introduction. He announced
that he would like to conclude public testimony and then go
through the governor's legislation.
3:39:00 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
stated that the court cannot take a position on the bill, but he
indicated that he was here to talk about the impact of the bill
on the court system, particularly the section that talks about
bypassing the superior court in the appeal process and have the
cases go instead from the administrative courts to the supreme
courts. For the past several years, he indicated that he had
seen about 30-40 cases a year, and that most of these are
resolved by the Superior Court. Only eight of them are appealed
to the Supreme Court.
3:40:40 PM
MR. WOOLIVER related that the court does not believe that the
passage of the bill will change these [appeal] numbers, since
only a tiny fraction of appeals are for workers compensation
cases that are moved forward. He then indicated that there were
three reasons that he felt that the passage of the bill would
not impact those numbers. First, he said that there are always
cases that are very close despite the facts concerning the case,
and these people will try to appeal. Second, there is always a
handful of novel legal cases that make it to the higher courts.
Lastly, there are many people that distrust public agencies or
the dispute resolution processes.
MR. WOOLIVER stated that every year there are tenacious people
here that will continue to appeal, regardless of the outcome of
the court decision. The expectation is that again, there will
be 30 to 40 cases that are referred to the higher courts. The
difference now is that they will go to the Supreme Court rather
than the Superior Court. He announced that one of the stated
goals here is to streamline the process and get to resolution
faster. Our concern here is that this will have the exact
opposite effect. He explained that if you bypass the Supreme
Court, it appears that you have saved time. He then said that
for some cases that might be the case. However, there is some
misconception here as far as saving time. The time spent in
both higher courts is different. The superior court takes a
year or so for its entire process, from the time you file to the
time that your case is finished. The Supreme Court is much
longer. In fact, he said, you are going to take about 20 months
to resolve the case, rather than a year. Because of this, the
courts and the legal community believe that this bill does not
achieve the goal of faster resolution of cases. It takes time.
3:43:11 PM
MR. WOOLIVER stated that the superior courts are one person, and
the Supreme Court is a body of five individuals. The resolution
is done by one person and is quicker. Most of these cases will
take longer if you bypass the superior court.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that for individuals that are in support
of the Governors legislation, especially chamber and business
members that might have an understanding of the court system,
they should address their experiences in their testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she recollected that there
were 30-40 cases that go before the superior court each year,
and she asked the witness if he could give an estimate on the
number of inconsistencies that have occurred in judgments handed
down.
MR. WOOLIVER answered that this inconsistency is really
perceived and is relative to the observer. He asserts that in
someone's eyes, the judgment is always going to be inconsistent.
Most of these cases are fact specific, even the ones that make
it to the Supreme Court. They don't have a lot of presidential
value because they are so fact oriented. He pointed out that
anyone could point out examples of times that certain judges in
certain regions have ruled one way or the other in similar
cases. He stated tersely that he has no way of determining what
is inconsistent or not. Mr. Wooliver indicated that he was
looking at Section 31.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there was any discussion on this
last year, whether from the court system or the administration.
MR. WOOLIVER recalled that there was not any discussion last
year.
3:46:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked, of the cases referred to the
superior court, how many of these were overturned.
MR. WOOLIVER answered that a majority of these are not over
turned. However, one always faces an up hill battle when
dealing with appeals. With the Supreme Court, it is sometimes
difficult to overturn since it concerns a minor provision. They
uphold the majority of the decision but overturn the case based
on a minor provision and send it back for retrial. Mr. Wooliver
stated that one cannot look at the outcome, whether it be
affirmed or reversed, but rather one must review each case
individually.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that, to that question, hypothetically, if
a company has an employee who files a workers compensation claim
and is granted the request, and then the employer challenges
this action and goes through the appeals process. He asked if
this was generally the scenario.
MR. WOOLIVER answered that he had not checked this.
3:49:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that one of the things
that he has heard is that from what he understood, half the
cases go either way, and that the appeal process when put into
play, has the same results for both the superior court and the
Supreme Court, where they are upheld, and in this context he
said he cannot determine what is wrong here. He then asked how
the legal practice of de novo hearings, in which the case is
heard anew, is going to upset this precedent and the number of
cases that are upheld by the higher courts. He then asked how
many more people are going to be appealing with the passage of
the bill.
3:50:33 PM
MR. WOOLIVER stated that he has tried not speculate if they
would see a lot more or fewer cases. He said that he could
think of reasons that would create more cases. He the
stipulated that if people trusted the board they would see fewer
cases, and if they did not trust the board, they would see more
cases particularly with the new cases created by the de novo
authority. The safest route is to assume that things stay about
the same as they are now.
3:51:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated that it's [the legislature's]
job to speculate, and therefore he appreciated that Mr. Wooliver
didn't want hazard a guess.
MR. WOOLIVER stated that he found a memo to Dave Donnelly, Chief
of Adjudication, which reveals several facts about 2004 appeals.
The bottom line is that most cases are upheld. [The memo]
breaks down the statistics of the appeal processes and the
document reveals that the appeal rate is around 8 percent and
the reversal rate of appealed Decision and Orders (D&O's) laid
down by the court system is around 16 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that he indicated that there
30-40 workers' compensation cases that reached the superior
court and she asked how many total workers compensation cases go
before the panel each year.
MR. WOOLIVER answered that he recalls that number being 20-
30,000 claims, though there were several other people here that
would be better at answering this question.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that the number of appeals each year
compared to the number of actual workers compensation claims
that make it to the appeal process is very miniscule.
MR. WOOLIVER agreed, and said it was a tiny percentage.
3:52:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, referring to Section 10, subsection
(c), paragraph (2), subparagraph (B), on page 7, line 2. He
then asked if there was any kind of review of an appointee's
background, or is this a standard appointment.
MR. WOOLIVER answered that the bill calls for gubernatorial
appointments.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that she could not understand, from
reading the test, whether the body of the board, minus the
chair, has to also be a member of the Alaskan Bar Association.
CHAIR ANDERSON answered that no, he did not think that they all
had to be attorneys.
3:54:29 PM
JOHN BAKER, builder, Building Specialty Inc, indicated that he
has been a builder for 40 years and originally came here from
Minnesota because of the problems that state was having with
workers compensation rate. He said he sees the same problem
happening here in Alaska. The rate has gone from 12 dollars for
every hundred dollars spent on salary to $28.86 per hundred
dollars paid in salary. He then stated that it is rumored that
an increase to $40 per hundred in wages. He said that he and
others like him cannot charge out these rates to people since
they cant build their homes at this rate. Home appraisers are
not coming in at the rates that are conducive to conduce banks
to give out loans to people. Because of this, he said, we don't
have the people working that we usually do. This makes it very
hard to make ends meet for workers and their families. There
are other things too. He mentioned that raises can't be given
when they are deserved.
3:57:15 PM
MR. BAKER said there are also people who are paying people
straight cash ($20-25) without any additional workers'
compensation being paid on top of that, which makes it hard to
compete with those who charge the additional cost of insurance
($40-50 range). The aforementioned invariably increases the bid
amount. He said that he wanted to keep all his people employed,
insured, and the whole operation legal, but increasing rates are
making it very difficult to compete and stay in business.
CHAIR ANDERSON surmised that the rates of workers' compensation
are so high, that a reduction is necessary in order to maintain
business.
3:57:57 PM
MR. BAKER responded by saying that he understood the need for
the insurance but when it gets to the point when workers are
hurt and the local economy is hurt, then it's not a good thing
to continue to see the rates increase to the point that
businesses go out of business.
3:58:52 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON asked how much Mr. Baker's workers' compensation
rates have increased in the last few years.
MR. BAKER answered that 12 years ago, the rate was at $12 a
hundred, and right now it's around $28.88 per 100 dollars. He
then indicated that there was a $2.25 rate jump in the past
couple of weeks.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked how many men were working in the operation.
MR. BAKER said that he had 10 men working. He then said that by
having this many men, his workers compensation went from $30,000
to a little over $80,000 a year. He said this rate hike has
taken the fun out of doing business.
4:00:33 PM
MR. BAKER indicated that the general contractors have projects
that are long whereas the subcontractors are only there for a
few weeks and they can get by with this rate. With large
projects, the costs are too high and can knock people out of
projects that they would like to be a part of.
4:01:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what the committee should
consider in trying to drop the rate.
MR. BAKER said that one of the things he would like to see a
flat rate system because it puts the rates within reach of
businesses, though he doesn't know what the cost would be. He
then pointed out that no matter what, someone is going to have
to pay for the insurance. He then said again that a flat rate
would boost the lower rate up to be more in parity with higher
rates. As an example, he said that the average lower rate that
is $1.83 and the rate on his end is up around $30. This is, he
says, at least 300 times the amount that the average business
owner pays in the state of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, referring to a previous statement, he asked
about the appraisal process and how the appraisal never seems to
meet the same costs that your building process entails. He
stated that he would assume that these appraisers would take
into consideration the costs of labor and materials
4:03:00 PM
MR. BAKER said that unfortunately that is not the case right
now. This is a result of the appraisers basing their
evaluations on current and historical prices of houses in the
surrounding areas. There is always a discrepancy between
appraisal and actual cost to build the home. Because of this,
it is hard to get people into the housing market when they
cannot afford the house.
4:04:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if he was familiar with statistics
that were published by the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development concerning cost increases and its association with
increases with medical costs. The average increase in medical
costs is about around 32 percent and this makes keeping
insurance costs down is dealing with medical costs. He
indicated that this is dictated by new technology.
MR. BAKER said that three weeks ago, it was mentioned that the a
state of Oregon slashed the costs of worker compensation but
this has resulted in the fact that doctors there have stopped
taking cases that are worker compensation claims due to loss of
income.
4:06:31 PM
MR. BAKER supposes that if rates do continue to go up, it will
result in cheating on the part of employers. He said that
people are going to stop hiring and instead will pay cash by the
hour for work and avoid paying workmen's compensation. These
employers will find people who are willing to work for cash.
4:07:14 PM
MR. BAKER stated that men will continue to get hurt and these
doctors are going to have people coming in without insurance.
4:07:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if he had any stats for your areas
concerning the number of home starts between 2000-2004.
MR. BAKER indicated his company did light commercial and
remodeling and that that rates have gone up, from $12.80 to
$30.00. The costs have gone up 100 percent for workers'
compensation.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, after sharing the fact that he is an
ironworker and property owner, stated that his insurance on
property insurance has gone up significantly. He indicated that
the rate went up from $197 to $860, although nothing had changed
about his policy and he had not posted any new claims. He then
asked if the rate that Mr. Baker was paying a few years before
was an artificial rate due to Freemont being in the marketplace.
4:10:16 PM
MR. BAKER said that he could not tell you if its artificial or
not, but knew what people were willing to pay out. He indicated
that workers are on jobs for three months each time, and if you
multiply the high rate times the number of men you have working,
it's too much. He then said that what was going to happen was
that without a cap on insurance, people would stop backing away
from paying the insurance. He said he saw this where he lived
and said again, that it is very hard to compete against.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked what would happen if they put more
money into enforcement.
MR. BAKER said that's a hard question. He indicated that men
have a right to work no matter what, but it was not a level
playing field and he said that enforcement was not the answer.
Lowering rates is the key. This is the reason contractors
cheat. Its not because they are trying to make more money, but
trying to keep costs nominal, and to do that, they throw out the
insurance.
MARK KLINE, citizen, Fairbanks, read the following statement:
The reduced fees mentioned in section 25 may quite
possibly reduce the quality of healthcare available
through the already existing law. When studies were
done during the Clinton administration, it was found
government regulation of healthcare in order to
control cost decreased the quality of it. If the
incentive of capitalism is lessened, the quality goes
down hill. If you allow the employer to regulate cost
by controlling fee amounts with their preferred
providers, the amount mutually agreed upon will be
passed to whomever the employee chooses as a
physician. As a result of this action, employees
won't have access to certain doctors unwilling to
reduce their rates to the predetermined amount set by
the employer's preferred provider.
By limiting access because of fee reduction,
section 25 could also effectively reduce cost of
medical procedures, but simultaneously will decrease
chances of successful completion of a portion of
surgeries. The exposure to a number of medical
procedures by some of the prospective preferred
providers will likely be more affordable, but at what
cost to the employee? Can the employer's preferred
provider guarantee satisfaction equivalent to surgeons
of the highest level of proficiency? It has been
statistically shown surgeons who have essential
credentials, but a limited current and repetitive
exposure to a given surgery are much more likely to
have an unsuccessful outcome than those who have both
attributes. Under the current law, employees have
access to the doctors with extensive and current
experience in addition to credentials, although
sometimes quite expensive. If this portion of HB180
is passed into law, they will not have this access.
An employee wishing to utilize the more proficient,
but expensive surgeon most likely won't be able to
afford the cost difference they would be burdened
with.
In addition to quality reduction issue, I contend the
majority of the cost problem employers are having is
because of the lack of appropriate pursuance of
safety, causing a rather significant quantity of
injuries and illnesses. The estimated rate nationally
is 5 injuries per 100 employees. However, Alaska is 7
injuries per 100 employees, making us 40% higher than
the national average, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. This higher incidence could likely cause
increased prices of insurance premiums, not to mention
possible safety inadequacies decreasing the quality of
the work environment. Not only is the state of Alaska
higher, it has been higher than the national average
for some time, dating back to the year 1996.
Apparently, it has been going on for some time. Thus,
the problem is not just the high cost of insurance
premiums, but rather lack of safety boosting worker
compensation costs with high premium prices following.
4:16:07 PM
I personally was employed by a company who provided
jobs for roughly 35 individuals in Fairbanks. Over
the course of one year's time in 2003 and 2004, the
company generated close to 400,000 dollars in worker's
compensation. In the following year, cost dropped a
significantly large amount by starting a pilot safety
program, studying safety hazards and recent accidents,
and taking necessary steps to correct existing safety
problems. Because of this action, employees had a
safer work environment, and employers decreased their
loss relative to worker compensation. Their
ballooning cost was primarily because of the large
quantity of injuries, leading to paying higher
premiums, not just because of the high cost of
healthcare. This company's name is Lynden Transport
Inc., a business known for their excellent service in
transportation here in Alaska. They now diligently
pursue safety at all times.
They however, are not the only company taking the
necessary action to ensure safety and keep cost down.
The oil industry as a whole has the lowest incidence
of injuries here in Alaska, demonstrating a genuine
concern for safety.
4:17:17 PM
Along with the quantitative injury problem increasing
cost, section 16 of the bill reduces the amount of
permanent impairment capitol an employee is entitled.
Not only does it reduce this amount, it could
encourage some employers who have little or no
interest in safety to reduce their efforts even
further in preservation of the working environment.
They could afford to take more chances because of the
lessened amount of penalty they would be subjected to.
In the comparison table of maximum allowable rates for
medical procedures provided by the Alaska Department
of Labor and Workforce Development, dated March of
2005, I would like to mention the cost of living here
may not have been taken into consideration. Comparing
rates in Oregon and Idaho to Alaska without an
adjustment relative to the cost of living difference
is a misrepresentation of the actual cost gap. Both
Oregon and Idaho costs of living are much lower than
here.
The table also does not factor in the annual 3%
increase in the cost of living here, nor does it
show the actual annual increase in charges. The
percentage of increase in charges for Arthroscopy for
example as well as the rest of the other procedures
spans over a five-year period. Arthroscopy shows a
27% increase. The actual annual increase is only a
little over 5% ($180.00) for this procedure. This
amount needs to be reduced even further by 3%
($108.00), because 3 of the 5% of the cost is
justified by the cost of living increase occurring
every year. This leaves only 2% ($72.00) profit above
and beyond the cost of living. If adjustments were
made to the other procedures in the table, one would
likely find the same result. The increases would also
be minimal. I would also like to point out any costs
incurred beyond the amount set in the table are
written off, according to information received from a
hospital here in Alaska.
Along with exclusion of cost of living, I would also
like to point out there are states whose cost of
living are much higher than Alaska. If one were to do
a comparison study in this direction, one may likely
find our procedural rates are not quite so high after
all. New York is a good example.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if Mr. Kline thought that the reason
they have these safety programs is to reduce the workers'
compensation claims or if they are offered a percentage of
reduction costs by having a safety program in place.
4:19:21 PM
MR. KLINE answered that the reason they started the safety
program was to reduce their overhead and healthcare costs, which
it did so greatly.
4:19:50 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON expressed the desire for people to not read
submitted letters and instead give additional comments about
House Bill 180.
JOHN NICKS, rehabilitation specialist, Anchorage, expressed
apology to those employers that have incurred premium increases
that have gone up so expeditiously despite the overall costs
rising only 6 percent. He then asked who was monitoring the
insurance companies in terms of premium increases. He then
stated that he could not see the intelligence behind fixing
workers compensation by reducing benefits to injured workers.
He then indicated that he wanted to speak to several sections in
the bill.
4:21:26 PM
MR. NICKS then stated that in Section 14, he thinks that it
would be important to remove the language that imploring that
the employer can stipulate the eligibility of benefits of
workers at any time. The problem that I hear from injured
workers now, and most certainly if the bill does pass, is that
they are encouraged to pursue the dislocation benefit instead of
using and facilitating the rehab and reemployment benefits
really are, and how they can benefit from these other benefits.
4:22:56 PM
MR. NICKS then added that there needs to be someone that can
advise workers about all benefits, rather than leaving this task
to a claims adjuster. Another section is Section 15, which adds
another disqualifier to the disposition of dislocation of
benefits. He then added that from his viewpoint, it sounded
like a permanent settlement of retraining, masquerading as a
benefit. Accepting a job relocation benefit should preclude
them to future access. He ends by stating that there is huge
difference between permanent impairment and disability.
Professor Stephen Hawking is a good example.
4:24:59 PM
MR. NICKS then indicated that Section 16 also had provisions
that he was concerned with, primarily a conflict of interest.
Any rehabilitation specialist who works for a company hired by
an insurance company and/or employers must be excused from being
selected or assigned to write the re-employment plan.
4:25:52 PM
MR. NICK then ended by stating that both employers and employees
are paying too much. He then indicated that his health
insurance went from $900 a month to $1800 a month. There has to
be a discussion on why the rates are being raised and what level
of profit is being guaranteed.
4:26:44 PM
WAYNE STEVENS, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, read
the following statement:
Certain workers' compensation structures and current
escalating rates are an ever-increasing burden on
Alaska's businesses. The ASCC strongly urges the
State Legislature and Administration to provide the
environment for stable, fair, and competitive
marketplace for both the insurer and insured. The SAC
encourages the legislature to diligently work toward a
solution to the Workers' Compensation Insurance crisis
and make meaningful insurance and regulatory reform
th
during the first session of the 24 Legislature.
MR. STEVENS then added that on a personal note, the Chamber's
insurance premium cost in 2003 was set at around $1554. This
rose to $2774, creating a 78% increase with no claims history.
He then said that this was office work and not laborious
endeavors such as construction.
MR. STEVENS indicated that he believed that the key components
of the needed reform are the following:
· Stabilize medical costs
· Use of preferred providers and generic drugs
· Adhere to nationally recognized standards of medical
care
· Create a new appeals commission to resolve appeals
faster
· Streamline vocational rehabilitation
MR. STEVENS continued by stating that these reforms are not all
that is needed to restore stability and balance to the Alaska
system, but that they were a very important start. We believe
they are an important first-step toward workers' compensation
system health. They will fairly protect injured workers and the
economic well being of Alaska businesses.
4:29:12 PM
MR. STEVENS continued to state that the reform legislation does
not roll back any injured worker benefits-rather it focuses on
cost reduction within the system, helping eliminate
inefficiencies with the system so local businesses can flourish.
MR. STEVENS ended by giving his support efforts to make
substantive reform to Workers' Compensation. He said the
following would help get proper reform:
· Recognize that there is no one single answer to solve
the problem.
· All parties involved must make concessions to make this
work.
· Provide an adequate safety net for workers hurt while on
the job, but not put the healthy worker out of work
when the business they are employed by can no longer
afford the premiums for Workers' Comp insurance.
4:30:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated that he assumed that the
Chamber of Commerce had workers' compensation and wondered if he
had called the company and asked them for an explanation when
the rates when went up.
MR. STEVENS explained that when the rates went up, they went up
for everyone, that it was the cost of the overall system. This
cost was shifted to all parties. He said that this was partly
due to the insolvency problems that were occurring at the time,
or the rising medical costs that were a result of the uninsured.
He ended by stating that everyone in the system, no matter what
their claim status is, must bear the costs.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if he thought that there should be
more attention given to enforcement to make sure that the
uninsured have less impact on the system and that employers are
paying the rate that has been assigned to the jurisdiction they
are located.
4:32:00 PM
MR. STEVENS stated that he did not know if this level of system
control and enforcement would solved the financial crisis that
was occurring. There are ways to spend some money on
enforcement but there are other things that can be done.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the Chamber of Commerce supported
the Governor's bill, more specifically the section concerning
the setting up of a different appeals system.
MR. STEVENS said that group is not focusing on the parts of the
bill but instead, we are trying to stress that it is up to the
legislature to solve it.
4:33:27 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON supplemented this question and asked how many
people were in the chamber.
MR. STEVENS said that there were 500 people.
CHAIR ANDERSON then asked that of the 500 Chamber member
employers, how many employees each of these employers have in
their employ.
MR. STEVENS answered that there were large employers with
thousands of employees and small employers with only two or
three employees.
4:34:05 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stipulate that for the argument, he would suggest
that there are 50,000 employees total. He then said that
according to the testimony given earlier, you have had input
given by people from within the chamber, not detailing how to
fix it, but that the rise in rates has been disproportionately
high and that it could not be attributable to accidents or
claims, or lawsuits, or overcharging by medical practitioners.
4:34:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that a portion of the increase that
the presenter experienced had to do with the risk factor
associated with the industry.
4:35:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated that the presenter had indicated
earlier that he was not so worried about specific sections of
the bill but that one section is concerned with roll backs in
medical and asked if there were going to be enough doctors to
take care of the people on worker's compensation.
MR. STEVENS answered that if contractors rolled back prices to
1990 prices, there would be fewer steel workers. This is not a
perfect bill, and we don't fix the problem, there will be
ancillary problems such as businesses shutting down, people
leaving the state because of the lack of attention to the
problem.
4:37:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN agreed and said that this has to be
addressed this year and he agreed that if medical care providers
don't get the money that they want, they are not going to take
care of the problem on their end.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD pointed out that there is no free lunch.
Someone is going to pay for the increase somewhere in the chain.
He made the observation that the crisis in insurance extends
further than just to worker's compensation, that it extends to
auto, home, and health as well. He said that he does not see
any movement towards going after those areas. He stated that
the bill before the committee right now denies many people
benefits that they have right now. He ended by iterating that
there is a problem here but it would take a lot more than what
is offered in the bill before the committee.
4:39:29 PM
MR. STEVENS agreed and stated that crises abound throughout the
legal, medical, and insurance industry. He then stated that it
would take changes in all of these to make a difference and
create a system that works. He then suggested that, referring
to Representative Crawford's statement, that it does not make
any sense to ignore the plight of the worker and job security,
since this is how they are insured an income. If they don't
have jobs, then the rest of the financial environment becomes a
moot point.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the presenter believed it fair that
the State Chamber of Commerce get tossed into this huge
insurance pool with other employers around the state and
experience substantive increases that have nothing to do with
claims paid.
MR. STEVENS answered that he did not agree with this at all. He
then stated that cost equalization did not make sense and that
ironworkers and secretarial workers did not operate in the same
environment. Ironworkers have higher risks, work higher off the
ground, and there are many licenses that are required to work in
this industry. Office workers do not have this type of hard
work environment.
4:41:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how long the chamber been paying
worker's compensation.
MR. STEVENS answered that this had been going on at least since
he had been there.
JERRY FLOCK stated that he did not want to offend anyone present
or in the state offices and that he wanted his testimony to be
heard and learned from. He began by stating that he did not
think that the problem had to do with how the laws regarding
workers' compensation were written, but how they are enforced.
[Mr. Flock then proceeded to play a third party conversation
which seemed to be about collecting money owed to the state for
company violations and enforcement of workers' compensation
laws].
MR. FLOCK indicated that this tape recording because it shows
how the laws are not being enforced. He stated that the state
of Alaska had paid $10,500 to him for workers' compensation, and
added that this was his employer's responsibility. Yet he
needed more help which was legally due to him, he did not get
it. He emphatically stated that his problems with dealing with
injuries, and the problems with getting compensation were
indicative of the problems that are being experienced by many in
the state, state agencies, social security, workers'
compensation, and the state judicial system.
MR. FLOCK stated that in conclusion, he wanted to make it very
clear that the problems with workers' compensation have been
going on for more than three years and that the legislators are
not dealing with the problem, and that this is the problem. He
ended by stating that he has outstanding medical claims that are
in his opinion, the states responsibility and that this claim is
not disputed by his supporters. He then asked the legislature
not to pass the bill.
DON ETHRIDGE, Lobbyist, AFL-CIO, pleads that this bill not get
passed, and that his group was having some problems with several
sections of the bill. He then stated that before he came to the
meeting, he had spoken to Barbara Huff, who indicated that they
were still in the process of meeting with the Governors staff
and the ad hoc committee has pledged to continue working on this
and are trying to find ways to save money.
4:50:02 PM
MR. ETHERIDGE indicated that there is also a commitment from
labor to stay at the table until this is fixed. Mr. Etheridge
said that although [labor's] chief concern is the worker and
more importantly, the injured worker, [those in the labor
industry] understand the employer's viewpoints as well.
[Laborers] have the same rising costs in their health trusts as
well. He related that "we" definitely want a bill here and are
committed to fixing this. A good bill means as much to workers
as it does to employers. Mr. Ethridge requested that the
legislation be held until it satisfies everyone.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked since the special session last year
produced no agreeable resolution, he asked if Mr. Stevens had
come up with a product that ad hoc and labor could agree on and
endorse.
MR. ETHERIDGE answered that if the ad hoc committee supports it,
that his group as well as himself, does as well. However, the
Governor did not use their input and came up with a bill on
their own.
4:53:35 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON pointed out that some are not supportive of the
ad hoc bill, yet say they are supportive of labor. Yet Mr.
Stevens, who represents labor, indicated that he would support
the ad hoc bill, though the bill did not have the Governor's
support. He then asked if they tried to move it out by this
Friday, would he then support the bill.
MR. ETHERIDGE said no, at this time he would not support this.
His concern what would happen in the next committee. He further
stated that he would like to have the work on the bill done in
this committee, since it is a labor and commerce committee. He
then said that there also needs to be some assurance that it
wont be held back or sent back. He then stated that the bill
sponsor basically tries to get it through the committees;
basically the bill is being pushed around until everyone has
their hand in constructing and debating the bill. This is
contrary to what the Department of Labor is wanting.
4:55:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what the current status of the ad hoc
committee meeting is with the Governor's people.
MR. ETHERIDGE indicated that he did not know what the current
status could be, but at 3:30, when he came to this committee
meeting, they were still meeting, and the information from the
people in the meeting suggested that new proposals had been
submitted by the Governors office. Once they finished their
meeting, there were going to go into a meeting of their own to
discuss the new proposals.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated that he wanted to work with the
absolutely latest bill and that he would like to work with the
latest bill if it's still in ad hoc committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked when was the ad hoc committee formed.
4:57:40 PM
MR. ETHERIDGE said that they formed in 1981, when as now, there
was a problem with workers' compensation laws. They figured out
that they needed an ad hoc committee, since the main group was
not getting anywhere.
4:58:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT then asked if the Department of Labor had a
suit (meaning the general makeup of the committee).
MR. ETHERIDGE indicated that there are five members from
organized labor, small and large businesses, and from both
management and worker sides.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if, during the course of the previous
summer, did the Governor's administration provide input into the
process of their proposal development.
MR. ETHERIDGE answered that the ad hoc people were present at
the meetings, but they did not bring forth any ideas of their
own. Instead what our ad hoc people did was to start with last
years failed legislation, and went through it section by section
and then from that point, they asked for more additional
information from the Department of Labor. Some of these
requests have been followed up, and others have not.
4:59:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if it was a fair characterization to
suggest that every substantive piece of workers' compensation
reform has come from the ad hoc committee.
MR. ETHERIDGE answered yes, that was correct; this included the
1988 overhaul.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked that the big names of the ad hoc
committee be revealed.
MR. ETHERIDGE announced that Kevin Daugherty, the counselor for
the Alaska District of Council Laborers, and Dick Catanaugh, of
the ABC, is the chair for the management side.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if HB 180 had any cost savings
whatsoever, or for that matter, reduce, or at least hold the
line on costs.
MR. ETHERIDGE answered that he did not believe it would. He
said that there would likely be an increase in medical rates
since injured workers will continue to use the emergency room
instead of clinics, since medical care providers will continue
refusing workers' compensation cases. The other concern is an
increase in health trust costs, which would be increased due to
shifts in causality from work to home, when workers are asked
where an injury took place.
5:01:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that these gentlemen [from the
ad hoc committee] are known by him, and that they represent
pretty hard-core views and this characteristic helps create
dialog, where it will not only benefit injured workers but also
to benefit businesses that are paying high rates. He then said
that he was encouraged that the ad hoc people were meeting with
the court system and he hoped that these parties could look at
this bill and do something to fix the workers' compensation
problem.
5:03:42 PM
MR. ETHERIDGE indicated that the Department of Labor wanted to
see something done with the bill and that they were committed to
the process.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that the section of the
Governor's bill which sets up a new appeals commission was not
duplicated in the ad hoc committee's bill. She then asked if
anyone had pushed to have this in the ad hoc bill.
5:05:20 PM
MR. ETHERIDGE said that the ad hoc committee did establish a
super panel that included the two most senior labor and
management people and one of the paid hearing officers to sit as
a panel to make decisions for the group long after it had been
appealed to a higher group. The Governor was asking for
precedent setting cases and the ad hoc committee decided to deal
with it this way.
5:06:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, in reference to concerns about
health trusts that were addressed earlier, asked what type of
cost containment in managed care techniques are being used and
what, if any, are the application implications of these same
techniques, to the workers' compensation problems.
MR. ETHERIDGE said that the majority of the trust raised
contribution rates. During the negotiations most of them raised
contribution rates. Some of them cut back benefits and others
had to do drastic cuts to help curtail costs, since they had
gone from $10 million to $900,000 in reserves. He then
indicated that they had built the reserves back up and the
benefits are back but the rate increase is still in place.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he appreciated the candor of
Mr. Etheridge, but I don't share Representative Kott's opinion
about the ad hoc committee. I believe that this committee has
been usurper of legislative power and its out responsibility to
the state of Alaska to do the law making. By depending on the
ad hoc committee we do the constituents a disservice. We are
not doing our job.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that on this note, he has decided that on
Friday, the committee would go over each of the bill and
hopefully we can come to a conclusion. He announced that he did
not intend on going along with the decision made by the ad hoc
committee, though he had respect for the group's efforts. Input
needs to be had from groups ranging from tort reform and medical
disputes, like the one Mr. Flock is experiencing.
5:09:04 PM
MR. ETHERIDGE stated that for clarification 4 of the members of
the ad hoc committee were also the owners of businesses and
members of the chamber of commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the ad hoc committee was making
any effort to work with the medical care providers.
MR. ETHERIDGE indicated that they have brought in the medical
community and attorneys that were interested in talking to the
committee.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that several witnesses have to call
back when there is more time. He said that the last witness
that will be testifying will be Beverly Aleck, Amchitka Workers
who has given the committee several emails, faxes and letters
regarding her subject matter.
5:11:55 PM
BEVERLY ALECK, representative, Amchitka Nuclear Workers,
indicated that she had been connected with the situation here
[Aleutian Islands] and its atomic test site for a number of
years. She said that the documents that she sent along to the
committee are actually requests to either amend the bill before
you or maybe a special legislative act could be invoked.
Listening to the complex problems here, and taking into
consideration the extent of the claims that the Amchitka workers
have filed already, numbering up to $125,000 to $200,000, it is
clear that the situation in Amchitka should not an issue of the
insurance underwriter.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked that she be more focused here as time was
limited and stated, knowing her history and her interest in
workers' compensation coverage for the Amchitka worker, that the
odds of it being added to the present bill were difficult and
tenuous at best, since we already have the bill structured for
the most part.
MS. AFLECK continued by stating that ratifying the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the State Workers' Compensation
Board and the United States Department of Energy (DOE). This
letter says that the DOE will agree to indemnify an agreement
with a DOE contractor. She indicates that her group has one
contractor that is associated with the claims. She then
mentioned that a contractor from the state of Nevada, called
Bechtel Nevada. Her documents show that this contractor did
agree to file, following an order that called to reimburse and
pay the claim.
5:14:33 PM
MS. AFLECK announced that the problems here are insurance
litigating attorneys. The thing that would make the procedures
simpler is to have Bechtel Corporation instead of clients having
to fight insurance attorneys. The funding for the this seems to
be coming from the Alaska Guaranteed Fund, and this funneling is
inappropriate and she suggested that this be looked at and an
inventory be made on this fund.
5:15:56 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that this needed to be taken care of in a
separate bill but that it was important.
5:16:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he did not have the
packet that Ms. Aleck had passed onto the committee and that
this issue was important to him, as his father was involved in
this Amchitka project [concerning nuclear testing on the
Aleutian Peninsula]. He then asked that the material be
forwarded immediately to his office.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:16:57 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|