Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/15/1997 11:07 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 1997
11:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to commercial motor vehicle inspections; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska to
guarantee the permanent fund dividend, to provide for
inflation-proofing, and to require a vote of the people before
spending undistributed income from the earnings reserve of the
permanent fund; and relating to the permanent fund.
- MOVED CSHJR 25(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 153
"An Act relating to the eligibility of aliens for state public
assistance and medical assistance programs affected by federal
welfare reform legislation; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 153 OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 84
"An Act limiting the authority to conduct pull-tab charitable
gaming to qualified organizations that are exempt from taxation
under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) or (19); and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 83
SHORT TITLE: COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/97 122 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/22/97 122 (H) TRANSPORTATION, STATE AFFAIRS
02/03/97 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/03/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/10/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/12/97 306 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 3DP 2NR
02/12/97 307 (H) DP: SANDERS, KOOKESH, MASEK
02/12/97 307 (H) NR: ELTON, COWDERY
02/12/97 307 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
02/12/97 307 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/97 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 25
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: PERM. FUND INCOME & DIVIDEND
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/26/97 483 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/26/97 483 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/97 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 153
SHORT TITLE: ALIENS AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/24/97 442 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/24/97 442 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, FINANCE
02/24/97 442 (H) 3 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS)
02/24/97 442 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DHSS)
02/24/97 442 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 84
SHORT TITLE: PULL-TABS LIMITED TO 501(C)(3) OR (19)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/97 122 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/22/97 122 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, L&C, FINANCE
03/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/97 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE FORD, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 83.
FRANK DILLON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association
3443 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-1145
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 83.
SERGEANT BRAD BROWN
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Unit
Division of State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
117 West 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-1779
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 83.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2487
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 25.
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 25; sponsor of HB 84
and HB 83.
RICK TESSANDORE, Executive Director
Disability Law Center of Alaska
615 East 82nd Avenue, Suite Number 101
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 344-1002
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 153.
SYLVIA CARVAJAL, Project Coordinator
Disability Law Center of Alaska
615 East 82nd Avenue, Suite Number 101
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 344-1002
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 153.
MADELEINE GRANT, M.D., Co-Medical Director
Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center
1217 East 10th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 257-4600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 153.
JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on behalf of the Governor
on HB 153.
JOHN SHERWOOD, Medical Assistance Administrator
Division of Medical Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110660
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0660
Telephone: (907) 465-3355
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on behalf of the Governor
on HB 153.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-28, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 11:07 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Elton, Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey.
Members absent were Berkowitz and Dyson.
HB 83 - COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 83, "An Act relating to commercial motor
vehicle inspections; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES asked Representative Vezey, chair of the
subcommittee, how he would like to proceed on this issue?
Number 0076
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY explained that Mike Ford, Attorney,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, was working on two committee substitutes. They had yet to
be reviewed, however, by the subcommittee.
Number 0136
MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, explained he had prepared two committee
substitutes.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey if the committee should
adopt the committee substitute as a working document?
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied the proposed committee substitute was
written in response to version "H" which had yet to be adopted. He
suggested adopting version "H" first and then discussing the
proposed changes.
Number 0212
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved to adopt the committee substitute, 0-
LSO384/H, Ford, 3/12/97. There was no objection, the committee
substitute was so adopted.
CHAIR JAMES noted for the record the arrival of Representative
Ethan Berkowitz at 11:09 a.m.
Number 0446
MR. FORD explained he started with version "H" of which four
changes were made to create version "K." The issue of how to deal
with the problem of the federal system changing in a manner that
conflicted with the state regulations was to provide that a
violation of a state law that was not a violation of the federal
system was an affirmative defense.
MR. FORD further explained that the amount of the fine of $300 was
raised to $5,000.
MR. FORD further explained that the committee substitute also
addressed the issue of the definition of "commercial motor
vehicle." It followed closer with the federal definition.
MR. FORD further explained that Sec. 2 of version "H" had been
deleted adding a repeal to the section by taking AS 28.32.040 out
of law.
Number 0492
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked Mr. Ford why Sec. 4 did not handle
the using of the federal law as an affirmative defense? It seemed
that the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety was
authorized to update the regulations to achieve compatibility with
federal law.
Number 0548
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that the federal law changed several
times per year and the state's ability to change regulations was
substantially slower. Therefore, operators were put into a
position of having to comply with federal law while at the same
time being in jeopardy of not complying with state law. There were
situations on the books like that at this time. "I think it's
proper to say the Department of Public Safety is really just
turning their back on the state law which is not really what we
want them to do." The affirmative defense clause said that a
person would have good reason to not follow the state law and that
good reason would be enough so that the court would not find that
person guilty.
Number 0630
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Ford if it was possible to draft
this piece of legislation in a manner that said state regulations
would always mirror federal regulations?
Number 0684
MR. FORD replied there was concern about due process in the manner
that Representative Elton suggested. There was a ruling from a
building code case from the Alaska Supreme Court that said, "you
cannot delegate the authority to adopt regulations and all future
amendments to it." The court also suggested that due process
concerns were more difficult to determine at the federal level.
Therefore, it would be best to say to adopt regulations that would
be compatible and if there was a problem a person would have a
defense avoiding the legal issues.
Number 0776
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted that there was no enforcement agency for
building codes, therefore, there was no conflicting enforcement
from the feds. The trucking industry, on the other hand, was
regulated stringently by the feds so there were two agencies
looking over its shoulders.
Number 0826
FRANK DILLON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association, was
the first person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. The
industry appreciated the work of the subcommittee. He apologized
that it was such a confusing issue. "I think we're getting real
close to having what we think is a real satisfactory bill."
Number 0847
CHAIR JAMES commented she was pleased with Representative Vezey and
his extra efforts with this bill. It was a good case in the area
of regulation review to evaluate where the regulations would fit
into the whole process.
Number 0875
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ commented on the increase in the
fine from $300 to $5,000. He wondered about its impact on the
court process.
Number 0901
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that the increase was keeping within
the trend of civil enforcement of safety violations. "We didn't
want to make most of these violations of this chapter a misdemeanor
because we didn't want to take these working people into jail, and
we didn't want to build more jails to house them, and we didn't
want to pay for their room and board when they were perfectly
capable of working." These were economic crimes, therefore, an
economic penalty would be an incentive to comply with the law.
"Safety is simply a question of dollars." A $300 fine was easier
to pay than it was to comply with the safety regulations. A $5,000
maximum fine would be an economic incentive to influence a person's
behavior.
Number 0992
MR. FORD stated that he was concerned about the limit because at
some point the courts would find that the penalty was high enough
to implicate criminality. In which case, a person received a
trial, a jury, and a defense, if he or she could not afford it.
He did not know if there was a problem at this point, however.
Number 1039
MR. DILLON stated that the association would like to see the fine
substantially higher. A $5,000 fine did not seem exorbitant for
the sorts of safety problems that could be caused by ignoring the
regulations. It would be to the advantage of the state and to the
industry to have a high fine in order to get people away from the
idea of taking chances. "By substantially increasing that fine and
using the process that we have available to educate members that
run trucks in the state, I think we're going to achieve compliance
and actually stay out of the courts more than we will with a lower
fine schedule."
Number 1103
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he was supportive of the raise
in the fine to $5,000. He agreed with Mr. Ford that it might not
be high enough.
Number 1119
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that we were reserving the violation to
Part 3-90 of the Code of Federal Regulations and still classifying
a violation of the certificate of inspection program as a
misdemeanor. There was concern that the statute needed to be
incorporated so that there would not be any confusion about whether
it would be a misdemeanor or an infraction.
Number 1168
MR. FORD stated that the only other issue left was how to
incorporate part of the federal regulations into the existing
statutory scheme. Representative Vezey suggested to simply cite
the federal regulations, however, there were portions of the
federal regulations that the state did not want. Therefore, it was
a process of determining those that it wanted to exclude and to
develop a way to reference those provisions. "Everyone should
understand that we are incorporating that federal provision so we
get whatever comes along with that, whether we like it or not."
Number 1218
CHAIR JAMES replied we do anyway. She asked Mr. Ford if he would
have that information by next Thursday, March 20, 1997?
Number 1239
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that the subcommittee would have time
to go over the committee substitute by then.
CHAIR JAMES replied it would save time if the subcommittee came
back at the next meeting with an explanation of the committee
substitute to speed up the process.
CHAIR JAMES noted for the record that Representative Fred Dyson
arrived at 11:20 a.m.
CHAIR JAMES further said that this was a beginning exercise on how
to do away with statutory law by trying to make it the federal law,
which the state knew it had to follow anyway.
Number 1296
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained there was also the issue of federal
jurisdiction over inter-state trucking versus intra-state trucking.
The federal regulations applied to intra-state trucking, but the
enforceability of the feds was questionable. "We know that if we
are going to have those enforced at the state level that it's
either going to be done by the state or it's not going to be done."
That was why this bill was needed to be looked at further.
CHAIR JAMES announced the bill would be held until Thursday, March
20, 1997, at which time a final committee substitute would be
looked at.
Number 1344
MR. DILLON declared that the association stood ready and willing to
work with the chair of the subcommittee at any time.
Number 1356
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Brown if there was any reason to
pursue reckless endangerment as a way of effectuating criminal
prosecution?
Number 1369
SERGEANT BRAD BROWN, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Unit, Division
of State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, was the next person
to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. He would stay away
from reckless endangerment because it seemed to be a catch-all law.
Therefore, he would not want to abuse it. In addition, for a class
A misdemeanor the state had to demonstrate that the person or the
company knowingly committed the offense. "And, so it's just not a
matter of going out and throwing a bunch of people in jail or
anything else like that. We have to prove that they knowingly
failed to do an annual inspection."
HJR 25 - CONST. AM: PERM. FUND INCOME & DIVIDEND
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HJR 25, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska to guarantee the permanent fund
dividend, to provide for inflation-proofing, and to require a vote
of the people before spending undistributed income from the
earnings reserve of the permanent fund; and relating to the
permanent fund.
CHAIR JAMES announced she worked with the sponsor and with Mike
Greany, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division,
on a committee substitute because she was concerned about putting
a statute in the constitution. It was a misuse of constitutional
space. She did not have a problem with establishing the priorities
of the use of the earnings in the constitution, however.
Number 1624
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that the committee substitute, version "B", took the actual formula
that they had been using for the dividend program and for the
inflation-proofing and kept it in the statute as a mandate. The
formulas stayed in the statute in order not to bind future
legislatures. If the formulas were in the constitution, "You'd be
in a world of hurt if you had a crash in the market or something
like that." Therefore, if there was a problem, the formula could
be adjusted easily in statute.
Number 1705
CHAIR JAMES explained the committee substitute, version "B," took
the existing constitutional language minus the following statement:
"All income from the Permanent Fund shall be deposited in the
General Fund unless otherwise provided by law."
CHAIR JAMES further read the following from the committee
substitute, version "B":
"(b) Income from the permanent fund shall be deposited into a
separate account in the fund, the earnings reserve account, as soon
as it is received. Money in the account shall be invested in
investments designated by law under (a) of this section, and income
from the investments shall also be deposited into the account.
"(c) On the first day of each fiscal year, an amount of income
shall be transferred from the earnings reserve account for
distribution as dividends to State residents as provided by law.
An amount of income shall also be transferred as provided by law
from the earnings reserve account to the principal of the permanent
fund to offset the effect of inflation on the principal of the fund
during the fiscal year just ended. Income distributed as dividends
or transferred to the principal is not subject to appropriation.
"(d) Appropriations may be made from the earnings reserve account;
however, the amount appropriated during a fiscal year may not
exceed the amount in the account on the first day of that fiscal
year after transfers have been made under (c) of this section."
CHAIR JAMES stated that the committee substitute, version "B",
protected the permanent fund dividend program as the first use of
the funds and protected the inflation-proofing as the second use of
the funds. If there were any funds left over, it authorized the
legislature to appropriate them. The original draft also said that
the balance of the earnings reserve could not be utilized without
a vote of the people which was taken out in version "B."
Number 1839
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated the major problem that he had with the
original bill was the vote of the people. That was now gone in the
committee substitute. The committee substitute did not say that
the income from the Permanent Fund would go into the General Fund,
but rather the income would go into a special account within the
Permanent Fund. And from that special account, there would be an
appropriation; first, for the dividend and; second, for inflation-
proofing. It would also authorize the legislature to appropriate
the remainder of the funds from that income account. Therefore,
the only thing that the committee substitute would do would be to
change the earnings from being designated as general funds to a
special account within the Permanent Fund, but those earnings would
still be available for appropriation by the legislature after the
two priorities.
CHAIR JAMES stated the biggest difference was that the original
draft put the statute in the constitution so that the way it was
calculated would be a constitutional mandate. Generally, statutory
language was not put in the constitution. The constitution was a
guide to establish mandates.
Number 1971
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON wondered if an analogy would be "us
determining the statutory language, we may not want to be too
specific in statutory language, let's handle that through
regulation to allow for changing circumstances that a department
may...."
Number 1981
CHAIR JAMES replied it was not so much regulative change as it was
statutory change. The statute was being put in and not the
regulation.
Number 2031
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated that the language of the vote of
the people had been taken out because once it was in the
constitution it would take the vote of the people to change it.
Number 2048
CHAIR JAMES explained the legislature could appropriate funds that
were left over for anything. The legislature had consistently
appropriated it back into the fund because the public believed that
anything the legislature would do to it would affect the dividend
and they feared that the dividend would be taken away. Therefore,
this was an opportunity to put into statute that there would be a
dividend program which gave them some protection. The original
bill indicated that in order to spend the money left over the
legislature would have to go to the vote of the people, even if the
legislature wanted to put it back into the corpus of the fund. It
was possible that some of the money would need to be used in the
future. In fact, it was available with a simple majority vote; not
the three-quarters vote that it would take for the budget reserve.
Number 2153
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Representative Austerman, if he wanted
to appropriate money from the left-over dollars to help built the
Kodiak launch facility for example, could if be done with a simple
majority vote?
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied, "Currently."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Representative Austerman, if he wanted
to appropriate more money than what was left in the account, would
it require a vote of the people to lower the amount of the dividend
appropriation or to lower the amount used for inflation-proofing?
Number 2208
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied, "Correct." The committee
substitute read: "(d) Appropriations may be made from the
earnings reserve account; however, the amount appropriated during
a fiscal year may not exceed the amount in the account on the first
day of that fiscal year after transfers have been made under (c) of
this section."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated a third scenario could be to change the
statute to change the inflation-proofing rate so that there would
be more money left in.
Number 2226
CHAIR JAMES replied, "That's right. In fact, you can't take any
more money out that's in there because you can not go to the
corpus." The statement made by Representative Elton was not
totally correct. The only reason he would have to go to the vote
of the people would be if the legislature said there was not a
reason for inflation-proofing anymore, for example. But, the
statute would need to be changed first.
Number 2249
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated the inflation-proofing formula in
statute would have to be changed.
CHAIR JAMES replied, currently, that could be done without changing
the constitution. "You just can't give up inflation-proofing.
It's there and it has to have a program."
Number 2258
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained the bill would not change either
of the current statutes or the formulas.
Number 2276
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to adopt the committee substitute.
Number 2283
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved to adopt the committee substitute, 0-
LS0659/B, Cook, 3/14/97. There was no objection, the committee
substitute was so adopted.
Number 2305
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ wondered if there was anybody from the
Permanent Fund to talk on this issue today.
CHAIR JAMES replied no one was here. She talked with the fellow
that was here from the trust after the last meeting. He was
concerned about putting statutory language in the constitution.
Otherwise, he believed that they did not have a dog in this fight
because they were there to manage the fund and what was done with
the earnings was up to the legislature.
Number 2335
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated he also agreed that the statutory
language should not go into the constitution. He called the
committee substitute excellent.
Number 2354
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN, Alaska State Legislature, stated that the
Permanent Fund Corporation had very wisely over the years resisted
giving testimony on legislation because they did not want to get
into the dog fight. The last time that they did, however, was over
the warning of the investment in gold, of which, the state lost
millions of dollars.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to move the bill out of the
committee.
Number 2370
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HJR 25, as amended, move from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s). There was no objection, CSHJR 25(STA) was so moved from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 153 - ALIENS AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 153, "An Act relating to the eligibility
of aliens for state public assistance and medical assistance
programs affected by federal welfare reform legislation; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 2468
RICK TESSANDORE, Executive Director, Disability Law Center of
Alaska, was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage.
TAPE 97-28, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. TESSANDORE stated that 1,850 folks were on Medicaid, of which,
800 were Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients. The center
was working with Catholic Social Services, the Division of Public
Assistance and the Mental Health Trust Authority to try to identify
and to find the legal immigrants with disabilities who were at risk
of losing federal and state benefits in the near future. The
process of finding these individuals had been quite difficult due
to language barriers, for example. Many of these folks had lived
and worked in Alaska for many years but had never become
naturalized U.S. citizens. There were waiver processes that were
being used by the protection and advocacy system around the country
to identify these folks and to get them through the process of
naturalization. Thus, the center was concerned about the time
frame involved. The bill could extend the time needed to identify
and help these folks. He asked the committee members to support
the bill and to give the center the time to complete its search and
process to determine if these individuals would be eligible to
maintain their benefits.
Number 0105
SYLVIA CARVAJAL, Project Coordinator, Disability Law Center of
Alaska, was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. She had conducted a research project for the
Municipality of Anchorage and Catholic Social Services to determine
the impact of the welfare reform law on lawful permanent residents
mostly in Anchorage and Kodiak. The research indicated that many
of the lawful and permanent residents were disabled and elderly.
They had little or no income or other resources. They received
social security assistance. They used the money to pay for their
rent, their utilities, and their basics for survival. They
consistently ranked social security as the benefit that would
greatly affect them if they lost it. They also listed Medicaid and
Food Stamps. Some of the reactions from the individuals who were
interviewed were: crying, hopelessness, fear, desperation and
pleading for help. The center supported the bill and encouraged
its passage.
Number 0176
MADELEINE GRANT, M.D., Co-Medical Director, Anchorage Neighborhood
Health Center, was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. She was testifying today on a personal and a
professional level. Personally, she thought it was morally
reprehensible to deny services to those who immigrated to this
country legally. She was not a Native American, therefore, her
relatives had immigrated at some time to the country. Medically,
she thought the denial of assistance led to problems in their
personal lives and to a cost for the community. For example,
prenatal and antenatal care could prevent premature babies who
often had life-long disabilities. She cited several other examples
of scenarios that preventative medicine could stop or prevent life-
long disabilities. Hypertension was common in the immigrant
population and treatment prevented major strokes that caused
disabilities. She urged the committee members to support the bill.
Number 0333
JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services, was the first to testify
on behalf of the Governor on HB 153. The bill responded to the
federal government's welfare reform bill. The federal government
restricted services to legal aliens for all federally funded
programs which included Food Stamps and Supplemental Security
Income regardless of when they entered the country. Supplemental
Security Income was a federal program for individuals who were
blind and disabled. It was about $460 per month in cash. There
was nothing that the state could do about this, however, because it
was a federal law. The programs that were half-state and half-
federal which included Medicaid and the Alaska Temporary
Assistance Program (ATAP) were funded by the federal government and
matched by the state. Therefore, the federal government said the
states could choose what to do about them. Those individuals, as
far as the state was concerned, would be barred from the services
for five years. The third program affected was the Adult Public
Assistance (APA) program. It was a state program that provided a
cash supplement to those who were found to be disabled under SSI.
The state could write the eligibility rules for that program. The
Governor's bill said that if a person was on Medicaid, Alaska
Temporary Assistance program, or Adult Public Assistance, the state
would continue coverage as long as the person was in the country by
August 22; otherwise, the state would bar that individual for five
years. As a result, there was no additional cost to the state.
The fiscal note showed a savings because currently there was a
defined pool of those who were eligible as of August 22 and through
normal attrition people would be leaving that pool.
MR. LIVEY further stated that the issue involved legal aliens who
had been told that they could be in the country from the federal
government. There were 2,100 legal aliens currently on programs,
of which, 801 were on the Adult Public Assistance, 818 were on the
Alaska Temporary Assistance Program, and 1,900 were on the Medicaid
program.
MR. LIVEY further stated that they were eligible for these programs
essentially because they had met all of the eligibility criteria,
not because they were legal aliens. Therefore, those who were on
the SSI and Adult Public Assistance were disabled or blind and
could not work.
MR. LIVEY referred the committee members to a handout titled,
"Legal Aliens," a comparison of the current law and the proposed
change under the Governor's bill for the five affected programs.
Food Stamps and SSI were federal programs so the legal alien was no
longer eligible under the current law and the proposed change.
Medicaid and the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program were state-
federal programs, of which, the federal government barred coverage
and the proposed change would bar the legal alien for five years
for those who entered the country after August 22, 1996. The Adult
Public Assistance program was a state-only program so it could do
anything it wanted to it.
MR. LIVEY referred the committee members to a handout title, "FY 97
Budgeted Expenditures," showing the benefit packages. Before the
passage of the federal law, a blind or disabled individual received
$70 in Food Stamps, $484 in SSI, $362 in APA and they were eligible
for Medicaid. After the federal law and under current state law,
the blind or disabled individual would lose Food Stamps, SSI, and
Medicaid while retaining APA. Under the Governor's proposed bill,
the blind or disabled individual who arrived in the country prior
to August 22, 1996, received only $362 in APA and was eligible for
Medicaid.
Number 0775
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Livey what would be the fiscal note
if the bill was not passed? The question did not indicate how he
was going to vote.
Number 0785
MR. LIVEY replied if no bill was passed then the state would have
to continue to cover APA recipients for those that were here as of
August 22, 1996; as-well-as, any new aliens coming into the country
who were eligible for the program. There was nothing in the state
law to restrict that eligibility. It would be the same for the
ATAP program. The only difference was that because of the federal
welfare reform all of the services would be from state funds for
those that arrived after August 22, 1996 because the federal
government said the state could not use federal funds for five
years. It was different for Medicaid because an individual had to
be listed to be eligible. Legal aliens were not listed
specifically. Therefore, if no bill passed then legal immigrants
would lose their eligibility for Medicaid.
MR. LIVEY further explained that the legislature could craft its
own response to the federal law. If it did craft its own response
then there would be a difference in the combinations of
eligibility.
Number 0912
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Livey if the state did nothing would
it still be paying its component of the Medicaid program?
MR. LIVEY replied, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Livey if the state did nothing would
there be a savings in the Medicaid component?
MR. LIVEY replied, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Livey what would be the magnitude of
the savings?
MR. LIVEY asked that Mr. Sherwood, Division of Medical Assistance,
come forward and explain the Medicaid fiscal note.
JOHN SHERWOOD, Medical Assistance Administrator, Division of
Medical Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services, was
the next person to testify on behalf of the Governor. He explained
there were two fiscal notes - facility and non-facility - which was
how the budget was broken up. Both were zero fiscal notes and on
page 2 of each one showed the scenario if the legislature did not
pass the bill. Under the federal law the state still had to
provide emergency medical services to legal immigrants who did not
qualify for regular Medicaid. And the General Relief Medical (GRM)
program would provide coverage for certain services such as
maintenance drugs for certain chronic conditions. There would be
a shift, therefore, of the cost from the regular Medicaid program
to the Medicaid emergency medical coverage and for the GRM program.
The division estimated that on an annual basis there would be a
reduction in total spending of about $2.4 million if the bill did
not pass. That would only be a general fund reduction, however, of
approximately $750,000 because of the five year ban and the
division would continue to receive bills from those that were
eligible from providers.
Number 1056
CHAIR JAMES stated if the state did nothing it would not continue
to give Medicaid assistance, except in emergencies. The Medicaid
program was a matching program; therefore, she wondered if the
federal government did not give any money, would the state have to
match. Was that why the state did not have to fix the Medicaid
part? she asked.
Number 1090
MR. SHERWOOD replied, "Yes." Under state law, Medicaid services
could not be provided to individuals unless they were listed in
state law as being eligible. Once the federal government gave the
option to provide eligibility, there was no listing of this group.
Therefore, even under state law, the state could not continue to
provide that benefit.
Number 1115
CHAIR JAMES commented on the certification process of the SSI
program. She asked Mr. Livey who paid for the qualification now
and who would paid for it if the law changed?
Number 1164
MR. LIVEY replied the federal government paid for the
recertification.
CHAIR JAMES replied but now that the federal government did not
allow for the SSI program, it would not continue to pay for
recertification. Thus, would the state have to pay for it, or
would the state let the program go on without recertification?
MR. SHERWOOD replied the state had a contract with the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation that provided recertification for the
Social Security Administration and for the state programs.
Number 1207
CHAIR JAMES wondered if the state had been taking advantage of the
designation with SSI. She knew a lot of people who had to qualify
for SSI before the state would do anything for them at all. There
was a piggyback approach. Correct? she asked.
Number 1227
MR. LIVEY replied, "Yes. That's right."
CHAIR JAMES stated then there would not be anything kicked in until
the five years had gone by for the new aliens, except for
recertification. Therefore, the state would have to do more now
then when the feds were doing the recertification.
Number 1251
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Livey why negative income was tied to the
bill because the state would not get any of that income?
Number 1267
MR. LIVEY replied the two negative fiscal notes were tied to the
ATAP and APA programs. The notes represented time because there
would not be any new people coming into the programs because it
barred eligibility for five years. The fiscal notes really
represented the pool of eligible people now. Some, over the next
several years would leave that pool decreasing the General Fund
contribution. The notes were actually dollar cost savings.
Number 1309
CHAIR JAMES replied that really did not have anything to do with
the bill.
MR. LIVEY replied it had to do with the bill because it allowed the
state to not put new people onto the program.
CHAIR JAMES explained she had a real problem assigning a negative
fiscal note to the bill because it appeared it was the result of
the federal welfare reform as opposed to HB 153. "It seems to me
like were being defensive here as opposed to being aggressive."
She understood what Mr. Lively was saying, however. If the bill
was not passed, the statute said that the state had to deal with
legal aliens and the federal government would not give to the state
any more money. Therefore, the money that it would not give the
state would be a negative fiscal note. If the bill was not passed
the state would also have a positive expense. "It's confusing."
It seemed that there should be a notation indicating the savings
and the costs, if the bill was not passed. It appeared that the
notes only indicated the negative federal funds that the state
would get.
Number 1458
MR. LIVEY replied the notes did not indicate what the cost would be
if the bill did not pass.
CHAIR JAMES stated there was a negative cost as well as the income.
There was also a negative fiscal note in the expense-line for
introducing the bill.
Number 1481
MR. LIVEY replied the APA fiscal note of $156,000 indicated that
the state would save that amount in fiscal year 98. It was a
combination of people coming off of the program and new people not
coming onto the program. The net effect was that the program would
not have to pay out $156,000 creating a savings to the General
Fund.
CHAIR JAMES stated that the figure was under grants and claims.
Therefore, if the fiscal note was true, the legislature could
reduce the department's budget by that much.
MR. LIVEY replied if the bill was to pass, "Yes."
MR. LIVEY further asked the committee members to keep in mind that
these were folks who did have a disability and who did have a need
for this type of support, or they would not have been on the
program in the first place. The federal government had already
taken a lot of that support away. This was a way for the state to
maintain support for those individuals while at the same time
changing the rules for those who entered the country after August
22, 1996.
Number 1597
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Livey what did the state plan to do to
address the additional needs that the aliens would have? She did
not think the $362 from the state would cover their concerns.
Number 1642
MR. LIVEY replied that was a difficult question. The federal
welfare reform changes created a cost-shift from the federal
government to the state government and frankly some of that cost
would go down to the municipal government. The department did not
have any other items in its budget to make up for the cash portion
that the recipients would be loosing. The department had been
working with the Municipality of Anchorage and Catholic Social
Services to determine how programs and services could be absorbed
at the local level. "Your question is a very, very good one. It's
going to be very difficult."
Number 1683
CHAIR JAMES stated that the department knew who these people were.
She asked Mr. Livey if the department had done anything to notify
the local governments and/or United Way, besides Catholic Social
Services, to let them know where the need would be for a response?
Number 1704
MR. LIVEY replied the department had a contract with the
Municipality of Anchorage to work with the population of
immigrants. The municipality worked directly with Catholic Social
Services that had an immigration assistance program. The
department was also working with the Disability Law Center of
Alaska to find these folks and to help them become a naturalized
citizen. It was probably not enough, however.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to move the bill out of the
committee.
Number 1756
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that HB 153 move from the committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There
was no objection, HB 153 was so moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HB 84 - PULL-TABS LIMITED TO 501(C)(3) OR (19)
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 84, "An Act limiting the authority to
conduct pull-tab charitable gaming to qualified organizations that
are exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) or (19); and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Terry Martin, sponsor of HB
84, to present the bill.
Number 1806
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN explained that it had been ten years now
since the legislature had legalized slot machines as a way to make
money. They were called pull-tabs and they were used as a way to
raise money for charitable purposes that would in turn relieve the
state and federal governments of meeting their annual budgets for
charities. Now, it was time to call for the "opening of the books"
to see how many of the pull-tab permits were meeting the goals in
the name of charity. He knew that the legislators were being
swamped from phone calls and visitors who were impacted by this
bill. He believed that the state had every right to question what
they were doing with the public money. "They have every right to
question my integrity too, if there's any there. But, in the
meantime to threaten me with votes, I could care less if they
vote." If they were doing such a good job, they should come to the
committee and brag about their great things that they were doing
with the millions of dollars that were coming into their coffers in
the name of charity. He suspected that some would not come at all.
The legislature had the obligation to challenge them to see what
they were doing with the money. Were they using the money for
internal purposes? Were they using the money for purposes that
they had before pull-tabs? Were pull-tab monies being used to
supplement the money of the members of the Moose Club, for example,
that was used out of their own pockets? If the pull-tabs were
being used to supplement what the charitable and non-profit
organizations used to do on their own, then they were greatly
misusing the purpose of the program. He reiterated it was a good
time for the individuals to feel proud of what they were doing if
it was in the interest of the public. But, "I suspect that there's
many of them not giving the full amount of monies to a charitable
purpose, but may be using them for in-house purposes that they had
been doing for years." The Moose Club explained to him that it had
been in business for 85 years. Representative Martin responded,
"Wonderful. Fabulous. What did you do before pull-tabs came in?"
The Moose Club was an honorable, fraternal organization that helped
its members. He wondered, therefore, if the pull-tab monies were
only restricted to its members, or was it reaching out to others.
The Moose Club explained to him that it gave a scholarship.
Representative Martin replied the club took in $60,000. What
happened to the rest of the money? The Moose Club replied it was
8,500 members strong statewide. Representative Martin still
wondered what it was doing for the people. Was the money just
helping its own? Some of the organizations were going to shine
because every penny went to a charitable purpose. Some
organizations, such as, the Anchorage Baseball Team was on
Representative Martin's back. He did not consider it a charitable
organization because the money helped semi-professional baseball
teams. That was not charity. He reiterated it was time to find
out what was happening with all of the charitable dollars.
Number 2202
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Representative Martin what would be
the chance of doing away with vendors in Sec. 8 (a).? Would it be
possible in this bill?
Number 2218
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that was done in another bill. It
was deliberately split by advise from individuals who knew the
gaming industry. House Bill 84 would help the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) because it did not want to get involved in Alaska's
situation, but it realized that gambling laws undercut what it was
doing. Thus, he limited the bill to those permitted under
charities right now by the IRS. It was possible to add others;
such as, the operators and other permits. That was addressed in HB
56. This bill was to clean up what the state already had.
Number 2296
CHAIR JAMES stated that Representative Martin should not have told
the committee members that this bill helped the IRS. "We hate them
with a passion."
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN asked what was worse? He answered,
professional gamblers.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied the IRS.
Number 2312
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that he understood the testimony of
Representative Martin. The bill sought to solve the problem of
limiting the groups that could do pull-tabs. He wondered if
another approach would be to redefine what was a charity and what
the revenues could be used for in order not to limit the number of
groups. He would be interested in hearing why he chose this route
rather than the other.
Number 2391
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied it was up to the committee and that
was where the challenge was. Let's look at the charitable law, and
let's look at the organizations and how they respond to the bill.
It was going to be a hard decision to determine which organizations
were charitable and which took advantage of the pull-tabs.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2449
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 12:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|