Legislature(1995 - 1996)

01/30/1996 08:00 AM STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                            
                        January 30, 1996                                       
                           8:00 a.m.                                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
                                                                               
 Representative Jeannette James, Chair                                         
 Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair                                         
 Representative Joe Green                                                      
 Representative Ivan Ivan                                                      
 Representative Brian Porter                                                   
 Representative Caren Robinson                                                 
 Representative Ed Willis                                                      
                                                                               
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
                                                                               
 All members present.                                                          
                                                                               
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
                                                                               
 * HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 52                                               
 Relating to the creation of a new United States Court of Appeals              
 for the Twelfth Circuit.                                                      
                                                                               
      - PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 382                                                            
 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Dispensing             
 Opticians; and providing for an effective date."                              
                                                                               
      - PASSED CSHB 382(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                  
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 404                                                            
 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Chiropractic           
 Examiners; and providing for an effective date."                              
                                                                               
      - PASSED CSHB 404(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                  
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 405                                                            
 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Examiners in           
 Optometry; and providing for an effective date."                              
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
 * HOUSE BILL NO. 75                                                           
 "An Act relating to criminal mischief."                                       
                                                                               
      - PASSED SSHB 75 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                        
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 368                                                            
 "An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign                     
 financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by              
 the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists             
 that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses            
 of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."                 
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 317                                                            
 "An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign                     
 financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by              
 the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists             
 that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses            
 of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."                 
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
                                                                               
 BILL:  HJR 52                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR 12TH CIRCUIT                        
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER, Rokeberg                                
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG            ACTION                                        
 01/09/96      2392    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/09/96      2392    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                          
 01/10/96      2404    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG                            
 01/30/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 382                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS                             
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES                                           
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG            ACTION                                        
 12/29/95      2366    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/08/96      2366    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/08/96      2366    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                     
 01/16/96      2451    (H)   STA RPT  3DP 3NR                                  
 01/16/96      2451    (H)   DP: JAMES, IVAN, ROBINSON                         
 01/16/96      2451    (H)   NR: PORTER, GREEN, OGAN                           
 01/16/96      2451    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                
 01/16/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 01/16/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 01/17/96      2472    (H)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                
 01/17/96      2472    (H)   REFERRED TO FIN                                   
 01/24/96              (H)   FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                 
 01/24/96      2527    (H)   RETURNED TO STATE AFFAIRS                         
 01/25/96              (H)   FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                 
 01/30/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 404                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS                                 
 SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE                                                  
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG            ACTION                                        
 01/09/96      2392    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/09/96      2392    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                     
 01/16/96      2451    (H)   STA RPT  4DP 3NR                                  
 01/16/96      2451    (H)   DP: JAMES, IVAN, ROBINSON, WILLIS                 
 01/16/96      2451    (H)   NR: PORTER, GREEN, OGAN                           
 01/16/96      2451    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                
 01/16/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 01/16/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 01/17/96      2472    (H)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                
 01/17/96      2472    (H)   REFERRED TO FIN                                   
 01/24/96              (H)   FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                 
 01/24/96      2527    (H)   RETURNED TO STATE AFFAIRS                         
 01/25/96              (H)   FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                 
 01/30/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 405                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF OPTOMETRISTS                                     
 SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE                                                  
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG            ACTION                                        
 01/09/96      2392    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/09/96      2392    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                     
 01/16/96      2452    (H)   STA RPT  4DP 3NR                                  
 01/16/96      2452    (H)   DP: JAMES, IVAN, ROBINSON, WILLIS                 
 01/16/96      2452    (H)   NR: PORTER, GREEN, OGAN                           
 01/16/96      2452    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                
 01/16/96      2452    (H)   REFERRED TO RULES                                 
 01/16/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 01/16/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 01/17/96      2472    (H)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                
 01/17/96      2472    (H)   REFERRED TO FIN                                   
 01/24/96              (H)   FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                 
 01/24/96      2527    (H)   RETURNED TO STATE AFFAIRS                         
 01/25/96              (H)   FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519                 
 01/30/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB  75                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: INCREASED PENALTIES FOR JOYRIDING                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SANDERS, Finkelstein, Kott                      
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG            ACTION                                        
 01/06/95        40    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        40    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        40    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                 
 01/25/95       136    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): FINKELSTEIN                         
 01/19/96      2494    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KOTT                                
 01/25/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 01/26/96      2540    (H)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS           
 01/26/96      2540    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                 
 01/30/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 368                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM                                 
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES                                           
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG            ACTION                                        
 12/29/95      2362    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/08/96      2362    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/08/96      2362    (H)   STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                           
 01/25/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 01/25/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 01/30/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 317                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM                                 
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FINKELSTEIN                                     
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG            ACTION                                        
 04/21/95      1427    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/21/95      1427    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                 
 01/08/96      2358    (H)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS           
 01/08/96      2358    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                 
 01/25/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 01/25/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 01/30/96              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
                                                                               
 JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General                                       
 Governmental Affairs Section                                                  
 Civil Division                                                                
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3600                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HJR 52.                          
                                                                               
 CHARLES E. COLE, Attorney at Law                                              
 Law Offices of Charles E. Cole                                                
 406 Cushman Street                                                            
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 452-1124                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HJR 52.                          
                                                                               
 WALT WILCOX, Committee Aide                                                   
 House State Affairs Committee                                                 
 State Capitol, Room 102                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3743                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 382, HB 404 and HB            
 405.                                                                          
 CATHERINE REARDON, Director                                                   
 Division of Occupational Licensing                                            
 Central Office                                                                
 Department of Commerce and Economic Development                               
 P.O. Box 110806                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2534                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 382, HB 404 and HB            
 405.                                                                          
                                                                               
 RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor                                             
 Legislative Audit Division                                                    
 Legislative Agencies and Offices                                              
 P.O. Box 113300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99800-3300                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3820                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 382, HB 404 and HB            
 405.                                                                          
                                                                               
 JEANNE LOVELL, Legislative Assistant                                          
    to Representative Jerry Sanders                                            
 State Capitol, Room 414                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4945                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided sponsor statement for HB 75.                  
                                                                               
 JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant                                              
 Office of the Commissioner                                                    
 Department of Corrections                                                     
 240 Main Street, Suite 700                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4640                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 75.                           
                                                                               
 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner                                                
 Office of the Commissioner                                                    
 Department of Public Safety                                                   
 P.O. Box 111200                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4322                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 75.                           
                                                                               
 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                    
 Central Office                                                                
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 75.                           
                                                                               
 DIANE WORLEY, Director                                                        
 Central Office                                                                
 Division of Family and Youth Services                                         
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 P.O. Box 110630                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3191                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 75.                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN                                              
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 424                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2435                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 368 and HB 317.               
                                                                               
 BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying                                          
 Public Offices Commission                                                     
 Department of Administration                                                  
 P.O. Box 110222                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0222                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4864                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 368.                          
                                                                               
 ROBERT GIGLER                                                                 
 7447 Obriens                                                                  
 Anchorage, Alaska 99507                                                       
 Telephone number not provided                                                 
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 368.                          
                                                                               
 FRANK SMITH                                                                   
 P.O. Box 1199                                                                 
 Barrow, Alaska 99723                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 852-4983                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided testimony on HB 368.                          
                                                                               
 ANALEE MCCONNELL, Director                                                    
 Office of the Director                                                        
 Office of Management and Budget                                               
 Office of the Governor                                                        
 P.O. Box 110001                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0001                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4660                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided comments on the supplemental                  
 appropriation on the federal shortfall.                                       
                                                                               
 JOHN KATZ, Special Counsel                                                    
 Washington D.C. Office                                                        
 Office of the Governor                                                        
 444 North Capitol NW, Suite 336                                               
 Washington D.C. 20001-1512                                                    
 Telephone:  (206) 624-5858                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided comments on the supplemental                  
 appropriation on the federal shortfall.                                       
                                                                               
 MARTHA STEWART, Special Assistant                                             
 Washington D.C. Office                                                        
 Office of the Governor                                                        
 444 North Capitol NW, Suite 336                                               
 Washington D.C. 20001-1512                                                    
 Telephone:  (206) 624-5858                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided comments on the supplemental                  
 appropriation on the federal shortfall.                                       
                                                                               
 JANET CLARK, Director                                                         
 Central Office                                                                
 Division of Administrative Services                                           
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 P.O. Box 110650                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0650                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3082                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Provided comments on the supplemental                  
 appropriation on the federal shortfall.                                       
                                                                               
   ACTION NARRATIVE                                                            
 TAPE 96-06, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0000                                                                   
                                                                               
 The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair                
 Jeannette James at 8:00 a.m.  Members present at the call to order            
 were Representatives James, Green, Ivan, Porter, and Willis.                  
 Members absent at the call to order were Representatives Ogan and             
 Robinson.                                                                     
 HJR 52 - CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR 12TH CIRCUIT                          
                                                                               
 The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs            
 Committee was HJR 52.                                                         
                                                                               
 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Representative Brian Porter,                  
 sponsor of HJR 52.                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 0088                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said HJR 52 was a resolution that would           
 put Alaska on record with the United States Congress which supports           
 splitting the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit into two                 
 circuits.  He referred the committee members to the map in the bill           
 file titled "The Thirteen Federal Judicial Circuits."  He explained           
 at the federal level the district court was akin to Alaska's                  
 superior court.  He also explained there were two levels of appeal            
 in the federal system - the circuit court and the Supreme Court.              
 He further explained the circuit courts were established decades              
 ago based on population.  The population had increased, and as far            
 back as 1973 a federal commission recommended splitting the Court             
 of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits.  Consequently, the               
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was split creating the Court           
 of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  The commission recommended              
 administrative changes for the Court of Appeals for the Ninth                 
 Circuit which he alleged were not working.  He further explained in           
 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit there were 27 judges, 17           
 judges in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and as few as           
 6 judges in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  The judges           
 in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit were divided into               
 panels, he explained, hearing cases by specialty.  However, this              
 created inconsistent decisions on the same points of law.                     
 Consequently, it was very expensive and difficult to practice law             
 in Alaska.  The five states that comprised the proposed Court of              
 Appeals for the Twelfth Circuit were Alaska, Washington, Oregon,              
 Idaho, and Montana.  In conclusion he announced all five attorneys            
 general from the states supported the notion.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 0470                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES announced the presence of Representatives Ogan and                
 Robinson.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0488                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked the status of the corresponding           
 legislation in Congress.                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0509                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said HJR 52 supported S.956.  S.956 divided             
 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit creating the Court of              
 Appeals for the Twelfth Circuit.  He stated, California, Arizona,             
 Hawaii, Nevada, the Mariana Islands, and Guam would remain in the             
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0562                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked how the circuit judges would be                 
 divided and if the division would be dictated by legislation.                 
                                                                               
 Number 0576                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded it would be decided based on case             
 load.  He stated it was best if they split the court for groups of            
 judges instead of all of them.  He cited the 27 judges in the Court           
 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit lived in the Los Angeles area.  He           
 alluded no matter where the judges originally came from, after                
 living in Los Angeles they became "Californians."  He further                 
 asserted it was affecting the laws.                                           
                                                                               
 Number 0635                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the judges would reside in one of            
 the states that comprised the proposed Court of Appeals for the               
 Twelfth Circuit.                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 0640                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied the state of Washington would                   
 probably be the seat for the proposed Court of Appeals for the                
 Twelfth Circuit was a lot closer than California.                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON alleged judges residing in Washington would           
 have a better understanding of Alaska.                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0673                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked if the judges had to live in a                 
 particular district to be appointed.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0684                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied they looked at applicants from the              
 general area and circuit.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0706                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if an Alaskan had ever been appointed             
 to a seat in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.                      
                                                                               
 Number 0708                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he did not know, but Charlie Cole,                 
 Attorney at Law, would be able to answer the question.  He also               
 announced Jim Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, was here in                
 place of Bruce Botelho, Attorney General to testify on HJR 52.                
                                                                               
 Number 0744                                                                   
                                                                               
 JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Government Affairs                   
 Section, Civil Division, Government Affairs Section, Department of            
 Law, said the Attorney General wanted to be here himself but was              
 detained in Seattle.  He stated the Department of Law supported HJR           
 52.  Mr. Baldwin alleged a locally oriented court of appeals would            
 benefit Alaska.  He said it was important the appellate courts                
 reflected the socioeconomic attitudes of the different regions.               
 The attitudes, he stated, shaped the development of laws.  He                 
 further said the attention of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth              
 Circuit focused on the more populace western states and needed to             
 be broken into a smaller unit to reflect the case load.  He cited             
 22 percent of the cases now pending before the Court of Appeals for           
 the Ninth Circuit were from Alaska, California, Washington, Oregon            
 and Montana.  In conclusion, he reiterated, the department                    
 supported HJR 52 and would support the committee in any way                   
 possible.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0935                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHARLES E. COLE, Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Charles E. Cole,             
 said he supported the geographic dismantle proposed in HJR 52 of              
 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  He referred to his               
 written statement to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and asked            
 it be part of the record.  He further stated the Court of Appeals             
 for the Ninth Circuit was the largest district and expanded from              
 Tucson to Point Barrow.  He asserted there was no particular reason           
 why Congress could not split the Court of Appeals for the Ninth               
 Circuit based on geography alone as it had done so before in the              
 past.  He further stated the decisions from California, for                   
 example, dealing with Alaska and the northwest were interpreted in            
 a bizarre fashion.  He alleged there was not a subjective "pulse"             
 of the various considerations of the statutes.  He cited the                  
 Kenaitze panel referenced The Milepost to define the term "rural."        
 He said it was defined as, "the vast areas of the U.S. where                  
 agriculture and ranching predominate."  He stated this definition             
 did not reflect to Alaska except maybe for the area near Palmer.              
 He also cited the Totemoff decision whereby the Alaska court                
 reached the opposite opinion.  Mr. Cole said he was not criticizing           
 the results of the decisions, but rather the judicial                         
 craftsmanship.  In conclusion, he stated, the judges in the Court             
 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit lacked a collegiality.  He also              
 mentioned Alaskan Robert Boochever who served on the Court of                 
 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not support HJR 52.                         
                                                                               
 Number 1370                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked how many cases resided and were                
 resolved at the court of appeals level, or was it just an avenue to           
 the Supreme Court.                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 1390                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. COLE replied it was the final repository for most decisions and           
 rarely did cases go to the Supreme Court.  He, therefore, alleged             
 the final authority resided with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth           
 Circuit.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1440                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN referred to previous testimony regarding             
 the definition of "rural" by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth               
 Circuit, and asked what rural Native Alaskans could expect if HJR             
 52 was passed.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 1488                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. COLE replied the rural constituencies could expect decisions              
 emanated from a greater familiarity of issues such as subsistence             
 compared to decisions emanated from judges residing in Los Angeles.           
                                                                               
 Number 1560                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Cole if he knew where S.956 was             
 in the legislative process.  She also asked if there was a way to             
 be sure judges appointed to the proposed Court of Appeals for the             
 Twelfth Circuit would understand Alaska.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1580                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. COLE replied he did not know where S.956 was in the process.              
 He also suggest Arizona should shift to the same circuit district             
 as California.  Mr. Cole further replied the appointment of the               
 judges were left to the Alaskan Congressional delegates as they               
 were appointed at the federal level.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 1640                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated S.956 just passed out of the U.S.                
 Senate Judiciary Committee.  He further announced the population in           
 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was 45 million, and                
 suggested by population alone the argument was strong enough to               
 create a new one.                                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1680                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that HJR 52 move from the committee with           
 zero fiscal note and individual recommendations.  Hearing no                  
 objection, HJR 52 was moved out of the House State Affairs                    
 Committee.                                                                    
 HB 382 - EXTEND BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS                                
 HB 404 - EXTENDING BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS                                     
 HB 405 - EXTEND BOARD OF OPTOMETRISTS                                         
                                                                              
 Number 1730                                                                   
                                                                               
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Committee was CSHB 382(STA), CSHB 404(STA), and CSHB 405(STA).                
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES called on Walter Wilcox, Committee Aide, House State              
 Affairs Committee.                                                            
                                                                               
 WALTER WILCOX, Committee Aide, House State Affairs Committee, said            
 the three bills before them were returned to the House State                  
 Affairs Committee by the House Finance Committee to incorporate the           
 recommendations of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee                 
 mentioned in the previous committee meeting.  Mr. Wilcox said                 
 Catherine Reardon, Director, Central Office, Division of                      
 Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic                   
 Development reviewed and agreed with the recommendations as stated            
 in her memorandum dated January 24, 1996.  He also referred the               
 committee members to the memorandum by Randy Welker, Legislative              
 Auditor, dated January 17, 1996, which summarized his suggestions.            
 He further said CSHB 382(STA), CSHB 404(STA), and CSHB 405(STA)               
 were given the same expiration date, the year 2002.  He alleged the           
 only controversy was in CSHB 405(STA) between the optometrists and            
 dispensing opticians.  He deferred to Ms. Reardon for additional              
 questions.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1831                                                                   
                                                                               
 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Central Office, Division of                      
 Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic                   
 Development, said she did not want to overemphasize the conflict              
 between the optometrists and the dispensing opticians, but over the           
 years there had been the discussion if optometrists had to employee           
 opticians or apprentices in their office if they wanted staff to              
 dispense glasses and contacts.  The audit suggested the issue be              
 put to rest.  She said there were two bills that exempted the                 
 employees of optometrists from the requirement in previous                    
 sessions.  The bills did not pass, however.  She alleged the                  
 discussion might delay the extension of the boards. In conclusion,            
 Ms. Reardon asserted the Department of Commerce and Economic                  
 Development did not take a stand on this issue.                               
                                                                               
 Number 1952                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WILCOX requested Ms. Reardon walk the committee through each              
 bill and discuss the changes.                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1968                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON said CSHB 382(STA) extended the Board of Dispensing               
 Opticians to the year 2002.  The rest of the bill, she stated,                
 addressed licensing requirements.  The bill removed reciprocity and           
 established a licensure by credentials, whereby an optician                   
 licensed in another state where requirements were substantially               
 equivalent to or higher than those of Alaska would be issued a                
 license without an examination.  She said Section 5, page 2, AS               
 08.71.150, repealed the reciprocity statute.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 2060                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if the bill being discussed was             
 the same bill as the committee previously discussed.                          
                                                                               
 Number 2070                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WILCOX replied this was a committee substitute.                           
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON answered the changes were the removal of licensure by             
 reciprocity, the fine tuning of licensure by credentials, and the             
 expiration date.                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 2102                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt the committee substitute.                
 Hearing no objection, it was so adopted.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 2110                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that CSHB 382(STA) move from the                  
 committee with the attached fiscal note and individual                        
 recommendations.  Hearing no objection, it was moved out of the               
 House State Affairs Committee.                                                
                                                                               
 Number 2127                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WILCOX asked Ms. Reardon to clarify the changes to CSHB                   
 404(STA).                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 2133                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON said the CSHB 404(STA) repealed the licensure by                  
 credential option, which stated the board could issue a license               
 without examination with proof of a license in another state.                 
 However, she announced, the board was not able to determine if the            
 exams were equivalent so consequently everyone was required to take           
 the examination.  She asserted the repealed statutes would clear              
 the confusion.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 2186                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved the committee adopt the substitute and            
 move CSHB 404(STA) from the committee with the attached fiscal note           
 and individual recommendations.  Hearing no objection, it was moved           
 out of the House State Affairs Committee.                                     
                                                                               
 Number 2220                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WILCOX said CSHB 405(STA) extended the date of the Board of               
 Optometry to the year 2002 and the recommendations suggested by the           
 Legislative Budget and Audit Committee were incorporated.  He                 
 stated CSHB 405(STA) was the controversial bill as Ms. Reardon                
 explained in her earlier testimony.  Mr. Wilcox called on Ms.                 
 Reardon to explain the changes.                                               
                                                                               
 Number 2230                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON stated CSHB 405(STA) reflected the recommendations of             
 the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.  Section 2, she said,             
 deleted the application for an examination fifteen days before the            
 exam and allowed the division to establish the deadline to ease               
 administration.  Section 3, she said, clarified the controversy               
 mentioned earlier as the substituted bill now read an optician must           
 be registered as an apprentice.  Section 4, she stated, repealed              
 the licensing of branch offices.  She said the board had not been             
 following this statute as it did not seem necessary to obtain a               
 different license for each branch office.  Ms. Reardon further said           
 Section 4 repealed the 20/40 visual acuity and the infectious                 
 disease provisions.  It was recommended to delete the above                   
 mentioned provisions due to the Americans with Disabilities Act               
 (ADA).  Ms. Reardon asserted an optometrist found practicing with             
 an infectious disease without protection would be subject to                  
 incompetence charges.                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 2344                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was a similar requirement for             
 doctors and dentists.                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 2350                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON replied there was not a requirement to get a license.             
 She cited infectious diseases came and went, and at the point the             
 individual became infected it was necessary to exercise protection.           
 She reiterated it was not recommended as a licensing provision.               
                                                                               
 Number 2373                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES mentioned the visual acuity requirement and asked if it           
 was possible a blind optician could do the required work.                     
                                                                               
 Number 2381                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON replied there were probably certain portions of the               
 work a blind optician could not perform.  She further stated the              
 repeal of Section 4 did not require the employment of an individual           
 who could not perform the duties.                                             
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES responded Ms. Reardon was talking about an optician and           
 not an optometrist.                                                           
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON apologized as she was confused about which sections               
 Chair James was referring to.                                                 
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON again answered she was not sure if a blind optometrist            
 could perform successfully, but the opportunity needed to be                  
 available.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 2451                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if it was difficult for an assistant as           
 mentioned in Section 3 to obtain a certificate.                               
                                                                               
 TAPE 96-6, SIDE B                                                             
 Number 0000                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON read the following statement.                                     
                                                                               
 "An apprentice has to register with the department before beginning           
 employment as an apprentice and shall be in training and under the            
 direct supervision of a licensed physician optometrist or                     
 dispensing optician.  You may not serve as an apprentice for longer           
 than six years without advancing to your full optician license,               
 unless you get special permission from the board explaining why you           
 were not able to complete the program in the six years.  No more              
 than two apprentices may be under the direct supervision of one               
 licensed dispensing optician at the same time."                               
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON stated it might be a problem if individuals did not               
 want to advance to a licensed dispensing optician, but rather                 
 continue as an apprentice.                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0014                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER inquired if an optometrist would have to                
 employee a licensed optician to supervise the apprentice.                     
                                                                               
 Number 0023                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON responded the statute read an apprentice could be                 
 supervised by a licensed physician, optometrist, or dispensing                
 optician.  She asserted it limited opticians, but not optometrists.           
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON read AS 08.72.181(b) into the record.                             
                                                                               
 "An optometrist licensed in this state and serving in the military            
 service of the United States, while in the discharge of official              
 duties, may maintain eligibility to practice in this state without            
 paying a renewal fee by registering the optometrist's name and                
 place of residence with the department."                                      
                                                                               
 MR. WILCOX announced the repeal of the above read statute, AS                 
 08.72.181(b), was removed from CSHB 405(STA).                                 
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON asked the committee members to ignore her recent                  
 testimony as it had been removed from the bill.  In conclusion, she           
 stated, there were only three repealers in Section 4, the branch              
 office licensing, the visual acuity, and the infectious disease               
 provisions.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0103                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if there were any witnesses to                
 testify on CSHB 405(STA).                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0114                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WILCOX replied Randy Welker, Division of Legislative Audit, was           
 here to answer any questions as well.                                         
                                                                               
 Number 0118                                                                   
                                                                               
 RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,                
 Legislative Agencies and Offices, said he would be happy to answer            
 any questions.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 0131                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he was interested in hearing from a                
 witness in the industry.                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0140                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked if the issue in Section 3 of CSHB 405(STA) was              
 whether or not a person working for am optometrist needed to be an            
 apprenticed optician.                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. WELKER responded Chair James was correct.  He explained it did            
 not matter where an optician worked, the standards should be                  
 applied to everyone in the field.                                             
                                                                               
 Number 0195                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES stated the section required those working under a                 
 dispensing optician needed to be licensed as an apprentice.                   
                                                                               
 Number 0234                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WELKER responded Chair James was correct.  He alleged the                 
 registration as an apprentice was not an onerous task as it only              
 required the intention of licensure.  He asserted Section 3 evened            
 the responsibility among everyone.                                            
                                                                               
 Number 0260                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any opticians or optometrists to              
 testify, and wondered it they were aware of the changes.                      
                                                                               
 Number 0272                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WILCOX replied there was testimony on the first bill, and said            
 he informed the head of the board.  He further said CSHB 405(STA)             
 would be in the House Finance Committee next week where witnesses             
 would have the opportunity to testify.                                        
 Number 0283                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied the House Finance Committee would not like the            
 bill to be passed on without proper review.                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0289                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would like to hear from the industry            
 as well.  He asked if there was the potential people might lose               
 their jobs now that certification was required.  He commented he              
 was concerned about the people already working under the old                  
 statute and how it would affect them.                                         
                                                                               
 Number 0312                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WELKER said the six year clock would start upon registration as           
 an apprentice.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 0325                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what the standard of practice was in            
 other states.  She also inquired what would happen to individuals             
 who did not want to progress in their current position.                       
                                                                               
 Number 0342                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WELKER replied it was first necessary to determine if the field           
 of opticinary required licensing.  He stated less than half of the            
 states in the U.S. licensed opticians.  If it was deemed necessary            
 to require licensure then, he asserted, it was necessary to require           
 everyone to follow accordingly no matter where they worked.  He               
 further said the issue had been debated before and the department             
 always agreed it was necessary for the public's best interest to              
 require licensing.                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 0390                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES wondered if there were any claims of injury from the              
 public as a direct result of an optician not being licensed.                  
                                                                               
 Number 0425                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WELKER said he was not aware of any significant concern.                  
                                                                               
 Number 0430                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON said there were complaints about unlicensed practice.             
 She offered to call the investigator for further information.                 
                                                                               
 Number 0444                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asserted she would like to hold CSHB 405(STA) until the           
 committee heard testimony from the industry.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0465                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was a problem with the                   
 extension date.                                                               
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied the extension date was extended to the year               
 2002.                                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if a delay would interfere with the               
 extension of the board.                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. WILCOX replied, no, because the bill did not expire until June            
 30, 1996.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0475                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. WILCOX stated the last issue to address was penalties for                 
 practicing without a license.  He said a bill would be read today             
 on the floor addressing that issue.                                           
                                                                               
 Number 0488                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said the issue was not incorporated into the bills                
 because it was a broad subject that encompassed all occupational              
 licenses.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Porter 0494                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested putting Section 3 of CSHB 405(STA)            
 in the above mentioned bill, and leave CSHB 405(STA) as an                    
 extension of the board only.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0500                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said that was a possible option.                                  
 HB  75 - INCREASED PENALTIES FOR JOYRIDING                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0510                                                                   
                                                                               
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Committee was SSHB 75.                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES called on Jeanne Lovell, Legislative Assistant to                 
 Representative Jerry Sanders to present the sponsor substitute                
 statement.                                                                    
                                                                               
 JEANNE LOVELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Jerry                  
 Sanders, said Representative Sanders was detained in Anchorage.               
 Ms. Lovell read the following statement into the record.                      
                                                                               
 "Sponsor Substitute for House Bill 75 labels those who take cars              
 belonging to others as what they are -- thieves -- not joy riders             
 or pranksters.  It increases the penalty for the crime of vehicle             
 theft to a C Felony with one minor exception (first offense snow              
 machines).                                                                    
                                                                               
 "This bill provides a strong deterrent for those who might                    
 otherwise commit vehicle theft.  Generally, under current law,                
 those caught "joy riding" can only be convicted of a Class A                  
 Misdemeanor.  The current law ties the hands of police and provides           
 no deterrent for the car thief unless they cause $500 damage or it            
 is their second offense.                                                      
                                                                               
 "By increasing the crime of "joy riding" to a felony, SSHB 75                 
 provides a strong deterrent necessary to prevent Alaska's youth               
 from participating in vehicle theft and it gives the justice system           
 the tools with which to make car thieves responsible for their                
 actions.                                                                      
                                                                               
 "There are other bills currently under consideration regarding                
 vehicle theft issues.  However, I, Representative Sanders, feel the           
 SSHB 75 best serves the public interest because it is a compromise            
 bill that stands the best chance of addressing the concerns of both           
 the legislature and the administration."                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0661                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said there was a day when steeling a horse was a                  
 hanging offense and now people drove cars.                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0677                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Lovell to explain the revisions in             
 SSHB 75.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0692                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. LOVELL deferred the question to Jerry Shriner, Special                    
 Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections.             
                                                                               
 Number 0703                                                                   
                                                                               
 JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,                 
 Department of Corrections, said the fiscal note expended about                
 three million dollars.  He stated two million related to the                  
 provision that made a second offense a class B felony with a four             
 years sentence.  SSHB 75 changed it so a second offense was a class           
 C felony with a two years sentence.  It was the cost difference               
 between the Class B and Class C Felony charges reflected in the               
 fiscal note.                                                                  
 CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness, Del Smith, Deputy                     
 Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public                
 Safety.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0757                                                                   
                                                                               
 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,                   
 Department of Public Safety, said the department supported SSHB 75.           
 He said it had been called "joy riding" for far too long, and                 
 sounded like a college prank.  In conclusion, he stated the                   
 department supported the increased penalties and believed in                  
 calling the action a theft.                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0830                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN cited six cars per day in Anchorage were stolen           
 and wondered if more cars were stolen in winter, for example.                 
                                                                               
 Number 0845                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. SMITH responded there were 20 cars stolen in one day in                   
 Anchorage due to the key being left in the car, so there appeared             
 to be more cars stolen in the winter.                                         
                                                                               
 0875                                                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Mr. Smith to explain the profile of a             
 juvenile and adult offender, and wondered if there were more                  
 juvenile offenders.                                                           
                                                                               
 Number 0891                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. SMITH responded there were 604 offenders last year of which 200           
 were juveniles and 400 were adults in Anchorage.  He asserted there           
 was a fair amount of juvenile offenders in Anchorage based on the             
 larger population base.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0919                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN described his time spent last year with the               
 Anchorage Police Department.  He said he was appalled at the list             
 of stolen vehicles.  He cited an example where an officer decided             
 not to pursue a possible stolen vehicle because it was not a felony           
 offense.  He said he was questioned by many police officers when              
 joy riding would be a felony.  He further cited in the Palmer                 
 Valley a first offender received a warning letter due to an                   
 overwhelming case load.  He questioned if SSHB 75 was for posture             
 or real action.                                                               
                                                                               
 Number 0999                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. SMITH responded a felony should commensurate with a                       
 consequence.  He further stated the message sent to juveniles that            
 "joy riding" was a felony needed attached consequences, and that              
 would cost money.  He further said he did not have the absolute               
 answer to Representative Ogan's concerns.  A consequence was                  
 needed, he alleged, or it was not a good piece of policy.                     
                                                                               
 Number 1040                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it appeared from the Health and Social           
 Service fiscal note there was a good chance of making a difference.           
                                                                               
 Number 1059                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if there were any statistics from the               
 rest of the state other than Anchorage.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1070                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. SMITH said because of the population base in Anchorage it was             
 the biggest problem.  He further said snow machines were a bigger             
 problem in areas off of the main road system.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1090                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if snow machines were excluded.                     
                                                                               
 Number 1100                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. SMITH said in SSHB 75 it was not a felony.                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked about skiffs and 4-wheelers.                        
                                                                               
 MR. SMITH responded the mentioned vehicles by Representative Ivan             
 were considered a misdemeanor.                                                
                                                                               
 Number 1115                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES cited a personal experience in 1990 where a family car            
 was stolen.  She also cited a personal example last year where a              
 snow machine was stolen.   She alleged there was a rash of activity           
 and something needed to be done.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 1189                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said if a car was stolen now it was only a                
 misdemeanor, but if a $500 radio was stolen out of the car it was             
 a felony.  He questioned why there was an exemption for snow                  
 machines as they were worth more than $500.                                   
                                                                               
 Number 1217                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said she understood a snow machine was a personal                 
 vehicle for some.                                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1230                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said when SSHB 75 was passed to the House               
 Judiciary Committee the sponsor and the committee were going to               
 consider incorporating another bill that addressed juvenile car               
 theft.                                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness, Anne Carpeneti, Assistant             
 Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal Division, Department of            
 Law.                                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 1275                                                                   
                                                                               
 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office,                   
 Criminal Division, Department of Law, said the Administration                 
 supported SSHB 75.  She announced it was long overdue.  Ms.                   
 Carpeneti said under SSHB 75 boat theft was a felony based on the             
 definition of a motor vehicle.  She further said a first offense              
 snow machine theft was a misdemeanor, but a second offense was a              
 felony.  It would be a felony if over $500 worth of damage was done           
 on the first offense, however.  She said she would be happy to                
 answer any questions.                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 1335                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if an all terrain vehicle such as a 4-              
 wheeler was included in the definition of a motor vehicle.                    
                                                                               
 Number 1340                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. CARPENETI said no.  It was included in the snow machine                   
 provision.  She read Section 1, page 3, line 1, "`motor vehicle'              
 means a propelled vehicle that is a passenger car, truck,                     
 motorcycle, watercraft, aircraft, or commercial motor vehicle."               
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness, Diane Worley, Director,               
 Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health &                 
 Social Services.                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 1383                                                                   
                                                                               
 DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family and Youth Services,                
 Department of Health & Social Services said she was here to answer            
 any questions.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 1402                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Worler if SSHB 75 would make a              
 difference and how would it affect her department.                            
                                                                               
 Number 1420                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. WORLEY said the juvenile probation offices throughout Alaska              
 were overburdened.  She alleged Representative Robinson's question            
 depended on the level of their ability to monitor juveniles and was           
 limited by resources.  She asserted the department supported SSHB             
 75.  She stated it increased the level of the crime and took away             
 the perception of "joy riding" versus the crime of auto theft.                
 However, the division would need additional probation officers to             
 make a difference in Anchorage and Palmer.                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1502                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said under existing law when a juvenile               
 stole a car he received a slap on the hand and asked Ms. Worley to            
 comment.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1532                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. WORLEY said the perception of the letter sent to juveniles on             
 the first offense was exaggerated.  She alleged the ability to take           
 a strong action on criminal mischief was limited due to little                
 leverage.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1590                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned the concept of victim mediation            
 and asked Ms. Worley to respond.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 1625                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. WORLEY said victim mediation had merit.  She alleged it                   
 depended on the level of the crime.  She affirmed victim mediation            
 would be a good alternative to the less severe cases.                         
                                                                               
 Number 1655                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES recalled her personal experience when the snow machine            
 was stolen.  She said it was a $4,000 snow mobile and when it was             
 returned it was damaged.  The mother of the juvenile cried when the           
 complaint was filed.  The case, however, was lost at DFYS.  Chair             
 James further said if it was her snow machine she would have                  
 approached the mother and juvenile directly to discuss the                    
 consequences.  She said there needed to be alternatives to help the           
 offender.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1740                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. WORLEY agreed alternative programs were needed that involved              
 the community and the parents.  She cited a personal story where              
 she stole a pack of gum at the age of five and was made to return             
 it directly to the store.  She said she was mortified and never               
 stole again.  Ms. Worley said juveniles learned from a process.               
 The division she reiterated supported alternative programs for                
 first time offenders.                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 1819                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES wondered what would have happened if DFYS had not lost            
 the file.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1850                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it was refreshing to hear discussion               
 regarding consequences to juvenile action.                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved SSHB 75 move from committee with the              
 attached fiscal notes, and individual recommendations.  Hearing no            
 objection, it was moved out of the House State Affairs Committee.             
 HB 368 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM                                   
 HB 317 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM                                   
                                                                               
 Number 2000                                                                   
                                                                               
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Committee was HB 368 and HB 317.                                              
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said the committee was to look at the individual                  
 sections today.  She further said a committee substitute would be             
 written based on the testimony and discussion in the committee.               
                                                                               
 Number 2082                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested adding the clause "there is a               
 perception from the public" instead of "the legislature finds."               
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said in the last meeting we discussed perception versus           
 reality.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked when the merit of the legislation               
 versus the initiative would be discussed.  She stated many people             
 called her office to say they were upset a piece of legislation was           
 being considered.  She said she thought they would be pleased that            
 the legislature was addressing the issue.  She asserted a bill                
 needed to mirror the existing initiative.  She asked if the other             
 members of the committee also received the same feedback.                     
                                                                               
 Number 2210                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said she had a few calls from people distressed about             
 the bill.  She further said it was an obligation to the people to             
 discuss the issue.  She also stated the committee should take heed            
 to the drafters.  She alleged things needed to be defined.  She               
 reiterated it was not the intention to challenge the initiative's             
 efforts.  Chair James asserted it was understandable the people               
 involved in the initiative would be upset because they obviously              
 felt the legislature could not deal with it directly.  She said she           
 hoped the committee process would convince the people legislators             
 were more honorable than believed.  She alleged the initiative was            
 a lawyer's chance and a court's nightmare.                                    
                                                                               
 TAPE 96-7, SIDE A                                                             
 Number 0000                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN started by addressing the                    
 sections.                                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 2 conformed to a later                
 section.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 3 read municipalities could           
 regulate more strictly than state law.  He said he was not sure if            
 they were completely restricted from that right now, however.                 
 Section 3, therefore, was a clarification.                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 4 addressed inflation                 
 adjustment.  He said HB 368 and the initiative made all amounts               
 subject to an inflation adjustment, whereas HB 317 tied inflation             
 adjustment to actual contribution limits only.  He alleged the                
 other minor amounts were silly to adjust and should stay at a round           
 number.  He recommended the approach in HB 317.                               
                                                                               
 Number 0208                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said she had an aversion to the consumer price index              
 and the measurement of inflation.  She alleged inflation                      
 measurements created a consumer price index.  She suggested a                 
 statute to change the amounts instead of a provision in a bill.               
                                                                               
 Number 0274                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said in five years the amounts were reviewed            
 and adjusted according to Section 4.  He suggested establishing a             
 maximum contribution figure instead of adjusting for inflation.               
                                                                               
 Number 0308                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 4 in HB 317 only turned the           
 power over to the commission.                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 0346                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if Section 4 were deleted an amendment             
 would be needed to adjust the amount.                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Representative Porter was correct.            
                                                                               
 Number 0369                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN continued addressing the sections.                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 5 was a conforming                    
 amendment.                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 6 was a cost saving step.             
 The section, he asserted, stated candidates that did not raise more           
 than $1,000 or intend to raise more than $1,000 did not have to               
 deal with the provisions of this chapter.  The reason, he said, was           
 to help the rural and smaller school board elections, for example.            
 He alleged there were many elections this section applied to due to           
 the small communities.  He also said the $1,000 figure was not a              
 magic figure and probably could be slightly higher.                           
                                                                               
 Number 0473                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER called on a witness from the Alaska Public              
 Offices Commission (APOC).                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0488                                                                   
                                                                               
 BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying, Public Offices Commission,              
 Department of Administration, said the commission had a                       
 teleconference on HB 368 yesterday, and a written statement was               
 being prepared.                                                               
                                                                               
 Number 0520                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if a provision existed to exclude a               
 candidate who did not intend to spend more than $1,000.                       
                                                                               
 Number 0535                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MILES said under current commission policy, it did permit                 
 candidates for municipal offices to file an exemption if they did             
 not intend to or raise more than $1,000.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0554                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the law was not clear, and if                 
 someone challenged it they would succeed.  Section 6, he stated,              
 would extend the exemption to state offices as well.                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 7 precluded the 50 percent            
 provision.  He said there was confusion when drafting the bill and            
 it did not reflect the initiative.  The bill said if a group                  
 supported or opposed and contributed to one candidate more than 50            
 percent of its funds, the name of the candidate should be part of             
 the name of the group.  He further suggested adopting the                     
 provisions in HB 317 instead of HB 368.  Section 7 also called for            
 registering before making an expenditure.                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0736                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said if you had to register before making a                       
 contribution the 50 percent concept was gone.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 0751                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the 50 percent was separate and               
 only related to the title of the group.  According to Mike Frank,             
 he alleged, there was a mistake when interpreting the intent of the           
 initiative.  He said it was corrected in HB 317.                              
                                                                               
 Number 0833                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES commented she was concerned about the general public              
 interpreting the initiative when a bill drafter had problems.                 
                                                                               
 Number 0864                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN continued addressing the sections.                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 8 stated only an individual           
 or a group of individuals could make a contribution to a candidate.           
 However, non-individuals could not contribute to a candidate.  He             
 stated this was the rule at the federal level.  He cited labor                
 unions and corporation contributions were banned during and prior             
 to the 1940's.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 0967                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated only individuals and political action            
 groups could make contributions to a candidate, and cited the                 
 political action group was limited to $500, and the individual                
 $250.                                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said it was $500 from a group and $500             
 from an individual.                                                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked how much an individual could make a               
 contribution to a political action group.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied $250.                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded a political action group could make           
 a contribution to a candidate of $500.  He asked if a political               
 action group could be a group of employees at a business, for                 
 example.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied yes.  He further said at the               
 federal level that was the type of political action groups that               
 proliferated.  He said he did not suspect that would happen at the            
 state level because the amount limits were the same as for                    
 individuals.  He cited at the federal level the contribution limit            
 was five times higher for groups.                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1091                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asserted she would get rid of political action groups             
 altogether.  However, she said, she did not want to water down the            
 initiative.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 1114                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said under the first amendment the right           
 to assemble in the political realm was the right to assemble in a             
 political group.  He stated it was upheld at the federal level.               
                                                                               
 Number 1155                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said a constitutional amendment was being discussed at            
 the federal level to fix the problem of political action groups.              
 She reiterated she wished they did not exist.  She said Section 8             
 presumed only individuals could make contributions to political               
 action groups and candidates, therefore, this eliminated revenue              
 from charitable gaming activity, for example.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1213                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the bills did not address                     
 charitable gaming.  He said, Mike Frank believed the vast majority            
 of the charitable gaming money came when a group turned its permit            
 over to an operator or vender and received the proceeds.  He stated           
 that would be a corporation giving money to a political group which           
 was not allowed.  There was a contrary view, he said, but he did              
 not know the answer.  He announced he believed it would still be              
 prohibited.  He cited legislation from Representative Martin and              
 Senator Pearce addressing charitable gaming.  He further stated,              
 the legislation allowed activity for a group to interact with the             
 public in the attempt to solicit funds that clearly demonstrated              
 where the funds would go.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1294                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if Mr. Frank believed there was an                
 avenue for gaming proceeds through the political group to reach the           
 candidate.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1315                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded the initiative committee                 
 believed a third party vendor raising money for a political group             
 was prohibited.  He cited that was a corporation and it was not               
 allowed.  He further said there was a contrary view, but he did not           
 agree with it.  In conclusion, he said, there was not a problem               
 discussing the charitable gaming issue.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1348                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would like to stay on the same page             
 as the initiative.  He stated he supported strengthening the                  
 language to preclude charitable gaming proceeds if it were the wish           
 of the committee and the direction of the initiative.                         
                                                                               
 Number 1382                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied there was a difference in the              
 initiative and the bills between someone who raised money on their            
 own with a permit, such as a raffle, and in the way money was                 
 raised in reality.  He suggested clarifying the issue.                        
                                                                               
 Number 1421                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said we should clarify the issue by stating only                  
 individuals could give to groups, and that money from groups could            
 only come from individuals.  Therefore, groups could only make                
 collections and not earn money in any other manner.                           
                                                                               
 Number 1446                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired about auction fund raising for               
 candidates.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 1457                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said a charitable gaming permit was not            
 required for an auction.                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1480                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES read the following statement into the record from Ken             
 Waldman, Box 22498, Juneau, Alaska 99802, (907) 463-8753.                     
                                                                               
 "Legislators now writing their own versions of a campaign finance             
 reform bill, and legislators who support those efforts, just don't            
 get it.                                                                       
                                                                               
 "1) The work is wasteful duplication.  A decent initiative signed             
 by more than 32,000 Alaskans is already on the ballot this                    
 November.  Supposedly busy people, don't legislators realize their            
 time can better be spent on issues that haven't yet reached the               
 petition stage?  Or do 32,000 Alaskans continually have to sign               
 petitions to be heard?                                                        
                                                                               
 "2) The work is cynical.  After years of blocking such a measure,             
 they're rushing forward only because it will be on the ballot.                
 Being in touch with their constituents--a part of the job, yes?--             
 would have revealed a large number did indeed approve the measure.            
                                                                               
 "3) The work is arrogant.  The official line is they'll write a               
 "better" bill.  In reality, no writing is perfect; all writing is             
 flawed, as will their bill be, only in different ways.  The real              
 reason has got to be to take this issue out of voters' hands,                 
 silence our voices.                                                           
                                                                               
 "4) The work is absurd.  Giving the legislators the benefit of the            
 doubt, I'm reminded of a movie scene where fire fighters arrive to            
 save a town on fire.  Only trouble, everything's cold rubble.  The            
 fire fighters are sincere, but inept.  Wanting to help, they're               
 days late.                                                                    
                                                                               
 "No wonder more than 32,000 Alaskans signed the initiative.  No               
 wonder so many of us are disgusted.  No wonder we need reform, and            
 have needed it for years.                                                     
                                                                               
 "Keep at them."                                                               
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in                  
 Anchorage, Robert Gigler.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1550                                                                   
                                                                               
 ROBERT GIGLER asked if Representative Green was present.                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied yes.                                             
                                                                               
 MR. GIGLER referred to a memorandum from a teleconference meeting.            
 He said he had a problem with contributions from the national                 
 parties to the state of Alaska.  He cited the National Republican             
 Party made enormous campaign contributions and should not be                  
 allowed.  He also asserted the $50 civil penalty should be raised             
 to $500.  He said after the appeal process the $50 went down to               
 nothing.  He also said it was the initiative petition to be on the            
 ballot in November of 1996.  In conclusion he said we need to get             
 something done.  He further said he was filing over 50 complaints             
 from February 15 - 17, 1996 because no one was filing within the              
 ten day time frame.                                                           
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in                  
 Barrow, Frank Smith.                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 1731                                                                   
                                                                               
 FRANK SMITH said he agreed with virtually everything Representative           
 Finkelstein said.  He further stated he was opposed to the                    
 contribution amount from political groups as it disturbed the                 
 political process.  He alleged when a candidate had access to large           
 sums of money it corrupted the process.  He also said he was                  
 concerned the language in the bill exempted municipalities that               
 chose to do so.  He cited the "wet status" election in Barrow where           
 it was unable to determine exactly where the money came from                  
 because the municipality many years ago chose to exempt itself.  He           
 suggested eliminating the language from the bill.                             
                                                                               
 Number 1790                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said the bill stated municipalities could get stronger            
 and not weaker.                                                               
 ADJOURNMENT                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs meeting at 10:08 a.m.           
 and moved right into the presentation made by the Administration.             
                                                                               
 Number 1841                                                                   
                                                                               
 The Administration Presentation on Supplemental Appropriation on              
 the Federal Shortfall was called to order by Chair Jeannette James            
 at 10:10 a.m.                                                                 
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness, Analee McConnell,                    
 Director, Office of the Director, Office of Management and Budget,            
 Office of the Governor.                                                       
                                                                               
 ANALEE MCCONNELL, Director, Office of the Director, Office of                 
 Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, announced she                  
 appreciated the committee members for their time today to receive             
 an update on the federally funded programs.  She stated a bridge              
 financing bill was proposed in early January due to the uncertainty           
 in Washington D.C.  She also stated John Katz, Special Counsel, was           
 on-line in Washington D.C. to share his perceptions with the                  
 committee members.  She announced there was a great deal of                   
 uncertainty still and the agencies were working minute-by-minute to           
 update their status.  Ms. McConnell said the agencies and the                 
 Administration were walking the line between causing unnecessary              
 disruption of federally funded services by overreacting, and not              
 being fiscally responsible by acknowledging what might happen if              
 the federal funding levels were lowered.                                      
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness John Katz, Special Counsel,            
 Washington D.C. Office, Office of the Governor.                               
                                                                               
 Number 1896                                                                   
                                                                               
 JOHN KATZ, Special Counsel, Washington D.C. Office, Office of the             
 Governor, announced Martha Stewart was also on-line in Washington             
 D.C. to help answer questions.  He said the situation in Washington           
 D.C. was characterized by uncertainty.  He stated he had never seen           
 a situation like this before and there were no patterns to                    
 extrapolate with accuracy about what might happen.  He further                
 stated Congress passed a continuing resolution until March 15,                
 1996.  He said Congress would not be working on appropriation                 
 issues between now and late February.  The current federal budget             
 process divided itself, he stated, into categories to include                 
 agencies subject to appropriation bills in the normal course of               
 business, agencies that received money at the conference committee            
 level, agencies that received FY95 appropriations at the lesser of            
 either chamber's level, and agencies funded at 75 percent of the              
 FY95 level.  He further said some agencies were funded based on the           
 FY95 budget at the 95 percent level until September 30, 1996.  In             
 Alaska the agencies most affected were unemployment insurance and             
 medicaid.  The final complications, he said, were the unresolved              
 differences between the political parties regarding welfare,                  
 medicaid and medicare reform.  In conclusion, he stated, there were           
 tertiary impacts, as well, for agencies in the Department of the              
 Interior because Alaska was a public land state.                              
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked where the veterans fitted in this scenario.                 
                                                                               
 MR. KATZ called on Martha Stewart to respond.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 2152                                                                   
                                                                               
 MARTHA STEWART, Special Assistant, Washington D.C. Office, Office             
 of the Governor, replied some, but not all of the veteran's                   
 benefits were protected until September 30, 1996.  She asked which            
 programs in particular Representative James was concerned about.              
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said Ms. McConnell mentioned the veterans in an earlier           
 discussion.                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. KATZ announced he would get back to the committee members in              
 response to the particular questions regarding veterans.                      
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said thank you.                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 2170                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL said the department was concerned about the disabled            
 veterans programs.  She said it first appeared the programs would             
 be funded at the 75 percent level.  However, every time the                   
 department was ready with a compilation more information was                  
 received that either would higher or lower the estimation.  She               
 said other states were caught in this uncertainty also.  She said,            
 it was difficult to receive the most up-to-date information from              
 the federal agencies.  However, at this point she felt the                    
 veteran's programs were in good shape.  She announced Arbe                    
 Williams, Director, Central Office, Division of Administrative                
 Services, Department of Labor was here to answer any specific                 
 questions.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 2228                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said she was willing to bridge finance when the only              
 thing holding up a decision was an accounts receivable from the               
 federal government that guaranteed funding.  She further said she             
 was concerned if the funding was authorized by the legislature over           
 and above the state budget then subsequently cut by the federal               
 government, she asserted, to make up the difference a cut would be            
 needed elsewhere.  However, she suggested language could be devised           
 to address this issue.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 2284                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL responded the language proposed initially was pulled            
 together quickly with the expectation adjustments would be made.              
 She wondered what should be done about a program which is funded at           
 the 75 percent level now, but was expected to be funded at a higher           
 level, because there was no guarantee of the higher federal                   
 funding.  She said she asked Mr. Katz if an agency was being funded           
 at a 95 percent level was it possible Congress would decide to cut            
 it back to 80 percent, for example, which would cause adjustments.            
 She said Mr. Katz felt that was unlikely.  She also said the                  
 department was concerned about laying people off in the interim               
 when it was believed the issue would be resolved.  There were other           
 states that did lay people off during the time of uncertainty and             
 resumed during the next continuing resolution.  She stated that was           
 not a good situation, however.  She further said most issues were             
 working out as hoped, such as unemployment insurance.  She said two           
 departments were here today to answer questions, the Department of            
 Health and Social Services, and the Department of Labor.  She                 
 asserted in some cases general fund matches would be spent at a               
 faster rate.  She stated this was a reasonable risk.  In conclusion           
 she wondered when to scale services that were being scaled back at            
 the federal level also.  She wondered if the cuts should be made              
 now or at the end of the continuing resolution period resulting in            
 more adjustments at the end of the fiscal year.                               
                                                                               
 Number 2440                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied she was concerned about eliminating something             
 that did not need to be cut to make up for the deficit.  She                  
 further enquired about the 95 percent level, and asked if it was              
 higher at the FY96 than the FY95 budget.                                      
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL asked if Chair James was referring to federal funds.            
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied yes, or was it left at that level.                        
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL replied no, a higher level was not assumed.  Except,            
 in the area of medicaid.  She said Alaska was at a disadvantage in            
 the medicaid proposals in Congress and the Administration was                 
 working closely with the Alaskan Congressional delegation.                    
 Otherwise a more conservative figure was assumed, she stated.                 
                                                                               
 TAPE 96-7, SIDE B                                                             
 Number 0000                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN commented there was an unprecedented                
 draught in the state right now, and unless it snowed, he alleged,             
 there would be an early and hot fire season.  He wondered how this            
 would be affected as there was a lot of federal funding that went             
 toward fighting the wild land fires.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0035                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. KATZ replied he was not sure because wild land fire fighting              
 had not been singled out for special attention.  He said it was               
 part of the Department of the Interior's budget which was                     
 uncertain.  He said it was an issue for the Alaskan Congressional             
 delegation.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0060                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded he would appreciate it if the issue             
 was addressed.  He reiterated his district had no snow and he was             
 concerned.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0071                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL said it was also an issue that would be addressed in            
 the supplemental budget with respect to disasters.  She stated a              
 bad break-up was anticipated this year due to climate conditions              
 and more information would be available later this week.                      
                                                                               
 Number 0125                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if it was easier to maintain the               
 previous level or anticipate the reduction and administer at the              
 reduced level.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 0134                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL said initially it was to maintain the 95 federal                
 level which was appropriated in the FY95 state budget.  However,              
 the uncertainty was piece-meal.  She said it was never the                    
 intention to use this to address larger policy issues such as a               
 state response to a federal budget reduction from here forward.               
 Therefore, she stated, larger policy questions needed to be                   
 addressed as well.  She hoped it would be dealt with in the FY97              
 budget as it would be an appropriate time to think it through, and            
 temporarily kept things going through the end of the state fiscal             
 year.  She cited the Occupational Safety and Health Administration            
 (OSHA) was the one agency the Administration now anticipates a                
 federal funding level of 85 percent, therefore, it was time to                
 start looking at the issues involved.                                         
                                                                               
 Number 0198                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested including the different funding               
 levels in the bill.                                                           
                                                                               
 Number 0217                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said it was important to know who the people were and             
 what they did to determine how a decision would affect them, and              
 suggested a scenario was needed.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 0229                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied part of the scenario was the state              
 level, the anticipated federal level, and the requested level.                
                                                                               
 Number 0238                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL said this was the first time there was an extended              
 time period where the funding level was known.  She asked the                 
 committee members if it was timely to bring a supplemental bridge             
 financing bill forward through the committees, or for the                     
 Administration to proceed as it had been.                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0287                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said the legislature was confused also.  She asserted             
 it was important to not expand the spending already authorized.               
 She stated the only way to deal with the issue was through                    
 supplemental funding.  She reiterated it was a tough decision and             
 everyone was in a quandary.  She alleged agencies funded at the 90            
 to 95 percent level probably would not get 100 percent funding.               
 She further alleged for agencies funded at the 75 percent level it            
 was questionable if it would be cut altogether.  She said she would           
 take the position it would not be funded beyond 75 percent.  She              
 cited her discussion with Arbe Williams which addressed carry-over            
 funds used in her department.  In conclusion, she suggested a piece           
 of legislation with guidelines was needed in the event this                   
 happened again.                                                               
                                                                               
 Number 0418                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON wondered about the status of the bill           
 introduced.                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said a bill had been introduced and was in the House              
 State Affairs Committee, but it was not before them today because             
 it needed to be amended.  She said the Administration was preparing           
 a substitute rather than the committee because they had the                   
 information.                                                                  
 Number 0460                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL replied she was happy to make the amendments.                   
 However, she said she received information the legislature did not            
 want to hear the bill.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0479                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES suggested including parameters in the revised bill.               
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL said Mr. Katz believed decisions would probably not             
 be made by March 15, 1996.                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied the bill should not be reactionary but                    
 precedent setting, therefore, more procedural than specific.                  
                                                                               
 Number 0502                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed a quick response was needed.  She              
 questioned if pink slips would be given in the next few weeks.                
                                                                               
 Number 0525                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL replied decisions were being made in programs where             
 the funding level was below 95 percent.  Layoffs would be necessary           
 for agencies funded at the 85 percent level, for example, for the             
 rest of the year.  However, it was part of the legislative budget             
 process to discuss reductions for FY97.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0569                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said specifics were needed along with parameters and              
 procedures.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0588                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MCCONNELL wondered if the committee members would like to hear            
 from the departments.                                                         
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES called Janet Clark, Director, Central Office, Division            
 of Administrative Services, Department of Health and Social                   
 Services.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0616                                                                   
                                                                               
 JANET CLARK, Director, Central Office, Division of Administrative             
 Services, Department of Health and Social Services, said this issue           
 was crucial to the department because it received over $400,000,000           
 in federal funds for various programs.  She said the department was           
 tracking this weekly producing a report.  The report, she stated,             
 was based on a letter of credit received from the federal                     
 government, and if the money was not in the letter of credit it was           
 included in the report even though the funding had been.  She said            
 she did not want to impact the state's cash position.                         
                                                                               
 Number 0672                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES responded it was not a problem authorizing funds when             
 there was a cash receivable.  However, when there was not a cash              
 receivable, a problem existed because of the possibility the it               
 might be adjusted creating more adjustments elsewhere.  She cited             
 medicaid as an example of uncertainty because of changes in the               
 law, and wondered if the changes would be retroactive.                        
                                                                               
 Number 0731                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. CLARK replied the department received quarterly advances for              
 the medicaid program.  She cited the department spent over $5                 
 million per week in medicaid payments and any changes would be a              
 result of a  policy decision.  She further stated the department              
 was in a different position than the Department of Labor, for                 
 example, because it received individual grants that went to people.           
 Therefore, decisions affecting benefit levels were needed.  There             
 were enough funds to keep the current benefit levels until May 1,             
 1996.  Ms. Clark also said the state could charge the federal                 
 government interest for the days cash was not sent, in some                   
 situations.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0811                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the department had the authority to            
 reduce a benefit.                                                             
                                                                               
 Number 0819                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. CLARK said the current benefit levels were stated in statutes.            
                                                                               
 Number 0830                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied there was a different spin on everything and              
 specifics were needed.                                                        
                                                                               
 ADJOURNMENT                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the Administration presentation at 10:45 a.m.           
                                                                               
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects