Legislature(1997 - 1998)

03/15/1997 11:07 AM STA

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

Document Name Date/Time Subjects