Legislature(2003 - 2004)

05/08/2003 08:07 AM STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                           
                          May 8, 2003                                                                                           
                           8:07 a.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair                                                                                           
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair                                                                                             
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom                                                                                                  
Representative Bob Lynn                                                                                                         
Representative Paul Seaton                                                                                                      
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                                                                  
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 157                                                                                                              
"An  Act  eliminating  the   Alaska  Public  Offices  Commission;                                                               
transferring  campaign, public  official, and  lobbying financial                                                               
disclosure record-keeping  duties to  the division  of elections;                                                               
relating   to  reports,   summaries,   and  documents   regarding                                                               
campaign,  public official,  and  lobbying financial  disclosure;                                                               
providing  for  enforcement  by the  Department  of  Law;  making                                                               
conforming statutory  amendments; and providing for  an effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 157(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 230                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to political signs on private property."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 149                                                                                                              
"An  Act requiring  nonprofit corporations  under the  Alaska Net                                                               
Income  Tax  Act  to  provide prior  public  notice  of  lobbying                                                               
expenditures  and an  annual report  of lobbying  expenditures to                                                               
the  Department of  Revenue; providing  for a  civil penalty  for                                                               
failure to  provide the  notice; and  providing for  an effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9                                                                                                    
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                                 
relating to an appropriation limit and a spending limit.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHJR 9(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14                                                                                                   
Relating to urging that the 2006 National Veterans Wheelchair                                                                   
Games be held in Anchorage, Alaska.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 157                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:ELIMINATE APOC                                                                                                      
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/05/03     0426       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/05/03     0426       (H)        STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                
03/05/03     0426       (H)        FN(S): FORTHCOMING                                                                           
03/05/03     0426       (H)        GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                                                                
03/11/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
03/11/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                      
03/12/03     0522       (H)        FN1: ZERO(GOV) RECEIVED                                                                      
03/12/03     0522       (H)        FN2: (ADM) RECEIVED                                                                          
03/12/03     0522       (H)        FN3: (ADM) RECEIVED                                                                          
04/22/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
04/22/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(STA)                                                                                  
04/24/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
04/24/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(STA)                                                                                  
04/29/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
04/29/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(STA)                                                                                  
05/01/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
05/01/03                (H)        Heard & Held -- Recessed to                                                                  
                                   Mon. 5/5 8:00 AM --                                                                          
                                   MINUTE(STA)                                                                                  
05/05/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
05/05/03                (H)        Heard & Held <Meeting                                                                        
                                   Continued at 7:54 PM Tonight>                                                                
                                   MINUTE(STA)                                                                                  
05/07/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
05/07/03                (H)        <Bill Hearing Postponed> --                                                                  
                                   Recessed to a call of the                                                                    
                                   Chair --                                                                                     
05/08/03     1474       (H)        STA RPT CS(STA) FORTHCOMING                                                                  
                                   3DP 3NR 1AM                                                                                  
05/08/03     1474       (H)        DP: SEATON, LYNN, WEYHRAUCH;                                                                 
                                   NR: HOLM,                                                                                    
05/08/03     1474       (H)        DAHLSTROM, GRUENBERG; AM:                                                                    
                                   BERKOWITZ                                                                                    
05/08/03     1474       (H)        FN1: ZERO(GOV)                                                                               
05/08/03     1474       (H)        FN2: (ADM)                                                                                   
05/08/03     1474       (H)        FN3: (ADM)                                                                                   
05/08/03     1479       (H)        JUD REFERRAL WAIVED                                                                          
05/08/03     1479       (H)        REFERRED TO FINANCE                                                                          
05/08/03                (H)        JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
05/08/03                (H)        <Bill Hearing Postponed> --                                                                  
                                   Recessed to a call of the                                                                    
                                   Chair --                                                                                     
05/08/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 230                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY                                                                                 
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HOLM                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/31/03     0713       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/31/03     0713       (H)        TRA, STA                                                                                     
04/29/03                (H)        TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
04/29/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(TRA)                                                                                  
05/06/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
05/06/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard --                                                                   
                                   Recessed to 5:30 PM --                                                                       
05/06/03                (H)        TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                    
05/06/03                (H)        Moved CSHB 230(TRA) Out of                                                                   
                                   Committee -- Recessed to a                                                                   
                                   call of the Chair --                                                                         
05/06/03                (H)        MINUTE(TRA)                                                                                  
05/07/03     1386       (H)        TRA RPT CS(TRA) 4DP 2NR                                                                      
05/07/03     1386       (H)        DP: OGG, KOOKESH, FATE, HOLM;                                                                
05/07/03     1386       (H)        NR: KOHRING, MASEK                                                                           
05/07/03     1387       (H)        FN1: ZERO(DOT)                                                                               
05/07/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
05/07/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                      
05/08/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 149                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:LOBBYING BY NONPROFITS                                                                                              
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WOLF                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
03/05/03     0395       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
03/05/03     0395       (H)        STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                
03/05/03     0395       (H)        REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS                                                                    
04/17/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
04/17/03                (H)        <Bill Hearing Postponed to                                                                   
                                   4/24/03>                                                                                     
04/24/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
04/24/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                      
04/29/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
04/29/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                      
05/01/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
05/01/03                (H)        Heard & Held -- Recessed to                                                                  
                                   Mon. 5/5 8:00 AM --                                                                          
                                   MINUTE(STA)                                                                                  
05/07/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
05/07/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(STA)                                                                                  
05/08/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HJR 9                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT                                                                              
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STOLTZE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
01/31/03     0102       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
                                   REFERRALS                                                                                    
01/31/03     0102       (H)        STA, JUD, FIN                                                                                
02/11/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
02/11/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(STA)                                                                                  
03/28/03     0687       (H)        COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG                                                                       
04/04/03     0797       (H)        W&M REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE STA                                                                
04/09/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
                                   519                                                                                          
04/09/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
04/09/03                (H)        MINUTE(W&M)                                                                                  
04/17/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
                                   519                                                                                          
04/17/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
04/17/03                (H)        MINUTE(W&M)                                                                                  
04/24/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
                                   519                                                                                          
04/24/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
04/24/03                (H)        MINUTE(W&M)                                                                                  
04/29/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
                                   519                                                                                          
04/29/03                (H)        Heard & Held -- Location                                                                     
                                   Change --                                                                                    
04/29/03                (H)        MINUTE(W&M)                                                                                  
04/30/03                (H)        W&M AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
                                   519                                                                                          
04/30/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
04/30/03                (H)        MINUTE(W&M)                                                                                  
05/02/03     1271       (H)        W&M RPT CS(W&M) NT 3DP 2NR                                                                   
                                   2AM                                                                                          
05/02/03     1271       (H)        DP: HEINZE, WHITAKER, HAWKER;                                                                
05/02/03     1271       (H)        NR: MOSES, GRUENBERG; AM:                                                                    
                                   KOHRING,                                                                                     
05/02/03     1271       (H)        WILSON                                                                                       
05/02/03     1271       (H)        FN1: (GOV)                                                                                   
05/02/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
                                   519                                                                                          
05/02/03                (H)        Moved CSHJR 9(W&M) Out of                                                                    
                                   Committee                                                                                    
                                   MINUTE(W&M)                                                                                  
05/06/03                (H)        JUD AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
05/06/03                (H)        <Pending Referral> -- Meeting                                                                
                                   Canceled --                                                                                  
05/06/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
05/06/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard --                                                                   
                                   Recessed to 5:30 PM --                                                                       
05/06/03                (H)        STA AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
05/06/03                (H)        Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                      
05/07/03                (H)        JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
05/07/03                (H)        <Bill Hearing Postponed> --                                                                  
                                   Recessed to a call of the                                                                    
                                   Chair --                                                                                     
05/07/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
05/07/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
                                   MINUTE(STA)                                                                                  
05/08/03     1465       (H)        STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 3NR                                                                   
05/08/03     1465       (H)        DP: SEATON, LYNN, DAHLSTROM;                                                                 
05/08/03     1465       (H)        NR: GRUENBERG, HOLM,                                                                         
                                   WEYHRAUCH                                                                                    
05/08/03     1466       (H)        FN1: (GOV)                                                                                   
05/08/03     1466       (H)        REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                        
05/08/03                (H)        JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                   
05/08/03                (H)        <Bill Hearing Postponed> --                                                                  
                                   Recessed to a call of the                                                                    
                                   Chair --                                                                                     
05/08/03                (H)        STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TODD LARKIN, Staff                                                                                                              
to Representative Jim Holm                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions regarding HB 230.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
ANDREE McLEOD                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During discussion of HB 230, expressed                                                                     
concern with regard to the enforcement provisions for vandalism                                                                 
to political signs on private property.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL DOWNING, Director/Chief Engineer                                                                                        
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services                                                                             
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities                                                                                
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Offered the department's perspective on HB                                                                 
230.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY WOLF                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Spoke as the sponsor of HB 149.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff                                                                                                         
to Representative John Stoltze                                                                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Spoke on behalf of the sponsor of HJR 9.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying                                                                                           
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC),                                                                                        
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions regarding HB 157.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
DAVID FINKELSTEIN, Volunteer                                                                                                    
Campaign Finance Reform Now                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Commented on HB 157.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
ANDREE McLEOD                                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 157.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
JAMES CANTOR, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                        
Transportation Section                                                                                                          
Civil Division (Anchorage)                                                                                                      
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:    During discussion  of  HB  230,  answered                                                               
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 03-57, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  BRUCE WEYHRAUCH  called the  House State  Affairs Standing                                                             
Committee  meeting  to  order  at   8:07  a.m.    Representatives                                                               
Weyhrauch, Holm,  Seaton, Dahlstrom,  and Gruenberg  were present                                                               
at  the  call  to  order.   Representatives  Lynn  and  Berkowitz                                                               
arrived as the meeting was in progress.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
HB 157-ELIMINATE APOC                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the  first order of business would                                                               
be  HOUSE BILL  NO. 157,  "An Act  eliminating the  Alaska Public                                                               
Offices Commission;  transferring campaign, public  official, and                                                               
lobbying  financial  disclosure   record-keeping  duties  to  the                                                               
division  of  elections;  relating  to  reports,  summaries,  and                                                               
documents  regarding  campaign,  public  official,  and  lobbying                                                               
financial   disclosure;   providing   for  enforcement   by   the                                                               
Department of  Law; making  conforming statutory  amendments; and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0264                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG moved  to adopt  CSHB 157,  Version 23-                                                               
GH1090\H, Craver, 5/7/03,  as the working document.   There being                                                               
no objection, Version H was before the committee.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 157 would be set aside.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
[HB 157 was taken up again later in this meeting.]                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
HB 230-POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced  that the next order  of business would                                                               
be HOUSE  BILL NO. 230,  "An Act  relating to political  signs on                                                               
private property."                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0409                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved  to adopt CSHB 230(TRA)  as the working                                                               
document.    There   being  no  objection,  it   was  before  the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM, speaking as the  sponsor of HB 230, provided                                                               
the following testimony:                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     The  ability of  citizens  to  express their  political                                                                    
     opinion,  even   to  advocate  for   the  same,   is  a                                                                    
     fundamental right.   This basic  right has  become even                                                                    
     more pronounced  when the expression  is made  on one's                                                                    
     own  private  property.     Currently,  the  state  law                                                                    
     prohibits the  posting of  campaign or  political signs                                                                    
     within  road view  or 660  feet, whichever  is greater.                                                                    
     This  applies  to  federally  funded  roads  and  state                                                                    
     roads.   The restriction includes private  property and                                                                    
     if  you and  I were  to  erect a  "No War  in Iraq"  or                                                                    
     "Support Our  Troops" sign  today, within  the distance                                                                    
     limits,  we would  be in  violation of  state law  even                                                                    
     though we're electing to utilize  our own private words                                                                    
     and political free speech.   It has been interpreted to                                                                    
     say  that   without  sign  restriction,   political  or                                                                    
     otherwise, that  Alaska may lose federal  highway funds                                                                    
     by being  out of compliance with  the restrictions that                                                                    
     the  Federal  Highway [Administration  (FHWA)]  program                                                                    
     puts upon the state of Alaska.   The [FHWA] ... on this                                                                    
     subject, however,  shows that  this untrue.   We  had a                                                                    
     letter in the packet that  is from the FHWA and relates                                                                    
     to that misinformation.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  explained that he introduced  HB 230 because                                                               
during the last  campaign and prior campaigns,  the Department of                                                               
Transportation  & Public  Facilities  (DOT&PF) wasn't  consistent                                                               
with its  application of rulings  or decisions  regarding whether                                                               
it was inappropriate  for folks to have political  signs on their                                                               
private property.   Those  who placed a  political sign  on their                                                               
private property  that could  be seen  from public  property were                                                               
considered to  be in  violation.   However, the  accusations were                                                               
that  the  candidate  was  breaking   the  law  in  these  cases.                                                               
Representative Holm said  he felt that it  was inappropriate that                                                               
folks were  getting their First  Amendment rights trampled  on by                                                               
DOT&PF.   He  noted  that in  the  House Transportation  Standing                                                               
Committee the legislation was changed  in order to help DOT&PF be                                                               
capable of taking care of problems  so as not to clutter Alaska's                                                               
landscape.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0719                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  directed attention to  page 2, lines 16-17.   He                                                               
surmised that  this legislation is talking  about political signs                                                               
for  which most  candidates would  use  a 4X8  piece of  plywood,                                                               
which would amount to 32 feet.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM pointed  out  that he  didn't  want tons  of                                                               
signs to be put together to  make one large billboard, which lead                                                               
to  the  definition  specifying that  co-joined  signs  can't  be                                                               
greater than 32 feet.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented  that one might as well  not put up                                                               
a  sign   600  feet   from  public   view,  depending   upon  the                                                               
configuration of  the lot.  Representative  Lynn turned attention                                                               
to  the letter  from  Andree  McLeod, which  is  included in  the                                                               
committee, and asked if HB 230 addresses sign vandalism.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM replied no.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0893                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TODD  LARKIN,  Staff to  Representative  Jim  Holm, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, explained  that sign  vandalism wasn't  addressed in                                                               
HB  230, although  the civil  remedy for  sign vandalism  already                                                               
exists.  Therefore, to give  DOT&PF enforcement of sign vandalism                                                               
seemed redundant.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM   told  the   committee  that  one   of  the                                                               
difficulties in making  the choice to enter  politics is choosing                                                               
to go against  the opponent who is  in power.  If  the ability of                                                               
people to,  in a  less costly  manner, get  their message  out is                                                               
hindered, the  incumbent has  a large  advantage.   Therefore, in                                                               
order to encourage  folks to enter the system and  be part of the                                                               
process, it should be as easy as possible.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1045                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  pointed out  that  one  can have  private                                                               
property in  a right-of-way,  but the  individual still  owns the                                                               
property.   He noted that in  his area great care  has been taken                                                               
to keep everything out of  the state right-of-way.  Therefore, he                                                               
asked if  Representative Holm would  accept a  friendly amendment                                                               
specifying that signs may not be in the state right-of-way.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  directed attention to  page 2, line 19.   He                                                               
noted that  he has rights-of-way  that go over his  property, for                                                               
which  he  has  given  easements   to  various  portions  of  the                                                               
government; however, that only means  he must allow access to the                                                               
property.   Furthermore,  the aforementioned  shouldn't deny  his                                                               
ability for  political free speech  with political signs  so long                                                               
as those signs don't obstruct traffic.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  expressed concern with using  a subjective                                                               
definition   regarding  whether   a  political   sign  obstructs,                                                               
interferes, or  confuses [traffic]  versus not allowing  signs in                                                               
the known distance of a right-of-way.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   HOLM  recalled   the  recent   passage  of   the                                                               
legislation dealing  with memorials  and the  consideration given                                                               
regarding  whether  memorials should  be  allowed  in the  public                                                               
right-of-way.     The  majority   who  voted  for   the  memorial                                                               
legislation  determined   that  it  was  appropriate   [to  allow                                                               
memorials in  the public  right-of-way].   Since the  signs being                                                               
discussed  today would  only  be in  place  during the  political                                                               
season, he said  he believes it's appropriate  to allow political                                                               
free speech.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  LARKIN commented  that this  legislation is  quite timid  in                                                               
asking the  state to  recognize this  right on  private property.                                                               
He  pointed  out  that  the committee  packet  should  include  a                                                               
supreme  court case  that addresses  "traditional  forums."   The                                                               
court found that  it's unconstitutional to prohibit  this type of                                                               
[political]  free speech  in many  types of  public rights-of-way                                                               
such as  public sidewalks.   However, HB  230 only speaks  to the                                                               
use of  signs on private  property.  With  regard to the  50 foot                                                               
right-of-way, DOT&PF already views that  as owned property and as                                                               
this legislation  stands a sign can't  be placed in that  50 feet                                                               
of right-of-way.   Therefore,  he didn't  believe there  would be                                                               
the  desire to  include something  that specifically  prohibits a                                                               
[constitutional] right.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1399                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG remarked  that he  likes HB  230, which                                                               
addresses  a  really  important  issue.   He  asked  whether  the                                                               
[committee]  should  "beef  up"  the  findings  to  discuss  free                                                               
expression or  whether the  legislation should  be expanded.   He                                                               
related his  belief that  many Alaskans  strongly agree  with the                                                               
right of free  speech and protecting it  constitutionally as well                                                               
as statutorily.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON   expressed  concern  that   the  language                                                               
speaking to  the right-of-way isn't  clear.  Although on  page 1,                                                               
line 13,  the legislation specifies that  outdoor advertising may                                                               
not be erected  within 660 feet of the  nearest right-of-way, the                                                               
"added sections" aren't clear.   He emphasized that he wanted the                                                               
provision  to  be  clear  in   order  to  avoid  each  individual                                                               
candidate approaching DOT&PF to understand the provision.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1624                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ANDREE McLEOD paraphrased from her  written testimony, which read                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     I've  been   a  victim   of  political   campaign  sign                                                                    
     vandalism.   Fortunately,  one of  my perpetrators  was                                                                    
     caught   and  his   accomplice   is  still   officially                                                                    
     unidentified.    Justice  has yet  failed  to  penalize                                                                    
     these people and I'm left  to wonder how someone can be                                                                    
     caught  vandalizing campaign  signs  without remedy  to                                                                    
     the victim.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     So,  can  you  please  explain  where  the  enforcement                                                                    
     provisions  are relating  to  violations  of these  new                                                                    
     political signs  on private property laws  you're about                                                                    
     to  put on  the books?   There's  no objection  to this                                                                    
     bill,  but where  are the  safeguards and  protections?                                                                    
     What are  the fines  for violating the  political signs                                                                    
     on  private  property laws?    If  you have  basic  and                                                                    
     inherent  laws,  you also  have  to  have penalties  in                                                                    
     place  to  deter the  miscreants  in  our society  from                                                                    
     violating those laws.   Could you please  clarify as to                                                                    
     the whereabouts of these remedies.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. McLEOD  acknowledged the  previous testimony  specifying that                                                               
civil  remedies  already  exist.     However,  she  informed  the                                                               
committee that  she has  been going through  the process  that is                                                               
available to  her and  her case has  languished in  the municipal                                                               
prosecutor's office.   She said she  wasn't sure if her  case has                                                               
to do  with the mutual  support between the perpetrators  and the                                                               
current mayor of  Anchorage, as evidenced by  their APOC reports.                                                               
Currently, the ombudsman is reviewing  whether there are remedies                                                               
because  it  seems  the  municipal  prosecutor  can't  find  any.                                                               
"What's the  sense in putting  laws on  the books when  you can't                                                               
enforce them," she asked.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1789                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL DOWNING,  Director/Chief Engineer, Division  of Statewide                                                               
Design  & Engineering  Services, Department  of Transportation  &                                                               
Public  Facilities,  explained  that the  right-of-way  functions                                                               
fall under  the division he supervises.   He turned to  the issue                                                               
regarding how  DOT&PF manages the  right-of-way and how  it would                                                               
treat a sign in the  right-of-way if the right-of-way included an                                                               
easement on private  property and the underlying fee  owner was a                                                               
private property owner.  Mr.  Downing explained that DOT&PF holds                                                               
that all of the highway right-of-way  is managed in the same way;                                                               
that is, DOT&PF  has management and control of those  lands.  The                                                               
aforementioned  has been  contested  and it  has been  supported.                                                               
Therefore,  Mr. Downing  related that  DOT&PF  feels it  is in  a                                                               
position  to  manage the  highway  right-of-way  and these  signs                                                               
would  be  prohibited  in the  highway  right-of-way,  under  the                                                               
current  language of  the  legislation.   He  specified that  the                                                               
department  would  treat  anything  within the  boundaries  of  a                                                               
right-of-way the  same.  He  noted that the  state's right-of-way                                                               
is a patchwork quilt of ownership.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM said  that HB  230 was  drafted in  the hope                                                               
that it was  in concert with the department because  there was no                                                               
intent to effect the department's  ability to protect the public.                                                               
Representative  Holm surmised  that the  department doesn't  have                                                               
any problem with  a sign that is  within 50 feet or  660 feet [of                                                               
the right-of-way] unless federal funding is impacted.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  DOWNING answered  that is  correct.   The department  sees a                                                               
distinction  between the  highway  right-of-way  and the  private                                                               
property that is  adjacent.  The federal  Outdoor Advertising Ban                                                               
and the  Federal Highway  Beautification Act  of 1965  do address                                                               
the lands  that are adjacent out  to 660 feet.   That prohibition                                                               
on outdoor advertising in that  area extends to signs farther out                                                               
that are  intended to  be read  from the  highway.   However, the                                                               
area  beyond the  660 feet  gets into  private property  and [the                                                               
department] views it differently as does the statutes.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  surmised, "Well, I'm hearing  that ... the                                                               
federal law encompasses  this further difference that  ... DOT is                                                               
working within the right-of-way  and management within the right-                                                               
of-way."    However,  Representative  Seaton said  he  wanted  to                                                               
ensure that the legislation is clear  so that when the statute is                                                               
read the same answer will be apparent to all.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2040                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if DOT  would have a problem if signs                                                               
were permitted in the right-of-way.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  DOWNING answered,  "It would  be a  much greater  concern to                                                               
us."   Furthermore,  he related  his belief  that the  FHWA would                                                               
change its position if advertising  was allowed within the right-                                                               
of-way.   He suggested that  perhaps the addition of  a provision                                                               
specifying "private  property exclusive of  rights-of-way granted                                                               
for transportation."   Although the department  thinks the matter                                                               
is clear now, he recommended  speaking with Jim Cantor, Assistant                                                               
Attorney  General, because  he  has dealt  with  a case  directly                                                               
related to this issue.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON interjected  that his  problem is  that he                                                               
called  three  different  folks  in  DOT&PF  and  received  three                                                               
different answers.  Therefore, the matter isn't clear.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH related that [political] signs along the [right-                                                                
of-way] in  Juneau are taken  down by the state  within 24-hours.                                                               
However, in Anchorage there are many signs in the right-of-way.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 2169                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   HOLM  corrected   Mr.  Downing's   testimony  by                                                               
pointing out that  there is a difference between  free speech and                                                               
advertising.  He said he  didn't want free speech and advertising                                                               
to be  treated the  same, and  therefore this  legislation arose.                                                               
He noted  that the  two are  treated the  same under  the Federal                                                               
Highway Beautification Act of 1965.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE      GRUENBERG      characterized     this      as                                                               
"constitutionally, a real moving target  issue."  In fact, a very                                                               
important case, the "Nike shoe  case", was recently argued in the                                                               
U.S. Supreme Court  and is under advisory.  This  case deals with                                                               
commercial free  speech and the  extent of protection there.   He                                                               
predicted that  the ramifications  of that  case will  spill over                                                               
into the [political signage] issues.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON requested  that  Mr.  Downing contact  the                                                               
attorney he mentioned in order  to pursue some sort of clarifying                                                               
language similar to what he suggested.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. DOWNING answered yes.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2265                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  directed  attention to  AS  19.25.075,                                                               
which was  the result of a  1998 ballot measure.   He pointed out                                                               
that  the   statutory  findings  are  there,   although  normally                                                               
statutory findings are placed in  the uncodified law.  Therefore,                                                               
it  seems that  the findings  in HB  230 would  be placed  in [AS                                                               
19.25].075 in order to illustrate that they are as important.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that would be fine.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  expressed  interest in  visiting  with                                                               
Representative  Holm  and  his  staff  to  explore  whether  this                                                               
legislation would be used as a reaffirmation of free expression.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2389                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN noted  that he  didn't want  to abandon  the                                                               
concern  brought up  regarding vandalism.   He  related his  view                                                               
that there  are different types  of vandalism and  that vandalism                                                               
on  a  political sign  is  vandalism  against  free speech.    He                                                               
expressed the need to address  the issue of vandalism before this                                                               
legislation moves from the committee.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  DOWNING pointed  out  that [CSHB  230(TRA)]  still has  some                                                               
items that are somewhat undefined,  and therefore there will need                                                               
to  be  some  definition  for them  eventually.    Therefore,  he                                                               
requested  some   refinement  with  the  terms   "temporary"  and                                                               
"currently  relevant".   Although  there  is  some reluctance  to                                                               
become  too specific  in statute,  eventually there  has to  be a                                                               
specific  [definition]   that  will  either  be   made  with  the                                                               
department's policy and  regulation or in statute.   He indicated                                                               
that   placing  the   [definition]  in   statute  would   provide                                                               
consistency.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM   highlighted  that   in  the   court  cases                                                               
referenced in  the committee  packet one can  see that  there are                                                               
some  specific regulations  put in  place by  various cities  and                                                               
those  regulations  speak to  the  lack  of constitutionality  of                                                               
placing time limits.   The aforementioned is  why the legislation                                                               
was written as it is.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  summarized  that   three  issues  have  arisen:                                                               
enforcement  issues, free  speech, and  right-of-way issues.   He                                                               
requested  that  Representative Holm  work  with  the members  on                                                               
these issues.  He then set aside HB 230.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  requested a  copy of the  opinion [from                                                               
the department's attorney] as well as any suggested amendments.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
[HB 230 was taken up later in the meeting.]                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HB 149-LOBBYING BY NONPROFITS                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced  that the next order  of business would                                                               
be HOUSE BILL  NO. 149, "An Act  requiring nonprofit corporations                                                               
under  the Alaska  Net Income  Tax  Act to  provide prior  public                                                               
notice of lobbying expenditures and  an annual report of lobbying                                                               
expenditures to the Department of  Revenue; providing for a civil                                                               
penalty for failure  to provide the notice; and  providing for an                                                               
effective date."   [Before the committee  is Version 23-LS0354\H,                                                               
which had  been amended at  the previous meeting.   Although this                                                               
document is entitled and referred  to as a sponsor substitute, it                                                               
was not officially such and thus  the document only exists in the                                                               
committee packet.]                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded  the committee that at  the last hearing                                                               
Mr. Briggs with  the Disability Law Center of  Alaska had offered                                                               
an amendment for the committee to consider.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2648                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KELLY WOLF,  Alaska State  Legislature, spoke  as                                                               
the sponsor of HB 149.   With regard to the amendment proposed at                                                               
the  previous  hearing,  Representative  Wolf  related  that  the                                                               
amendment would [achieve the intent  of the legislation] save one                                                               
matter.   Therefore,  he suggested  an amendment  to Mr.  Briggs'                                                               
amendment such that  the change of "$500" to "$2,000"  on page 2,                                                               
line 1, would not be changed  and thus the amount would remain at                                                               
"$500".     Representative  Wolf   explained  that   Mr.  Briggs'                                                               
amendment would  still result in  [the requirement]  for lobbying                                                               
efforts of  501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations to  be published in                                                               
a  newspaper.    Furthermore,  these  organizations  would  still                                                               
provide disclosure for their contributors.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH   clarified  that  at  the   prior  hearing  two                                                               
amendments  to  Version  H  were   adopted.    Now,  Mr.  Briggs'                                                               
amendment, Amendment 3, is before the committee.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that Representative Wolf had                                                                  
no problem with the first page of Amendment 3.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF replied no.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Amendment 3 is the handwritten                                                                   
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2792                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt the                                                                     
first page of Amendment 3, which read as follows [original                                                                      
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, line 2:                                                                                                         
          Delete "public"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, lines 2-3:                                                                                                      
            Delete "and an annual report of lobbying                                                                            
     expenditure to the Department of Revenue"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, line 8:                                                                                                         
          Delete ", annual report"                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, line 9:                                                                                                         
          Delete "public"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, lines 11-13:                                                                                                    
          Delete "a copy of the newspaper's certificate of                                                                      
     publication  with a  copy of  the notice  published and                                                                    
     the dates  of publication  within seven days  after the                                                                    
     last publication of the notice"                                                                                            
                              and                                                                                               
        Insert "written evidence of satisfaction of this                                                                        
     section."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, line 13:                                                                                                        
          Delete "public"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt the                                                                     
first item [on the second page] of Amendment 3, which read:                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, lines 13-14:                                                                                                    
          Delete "is required to" and "publication"                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he didn't  believe there is any objection to                                                               
that.    [Therefore,  the  above amendment  to  Amendment  3  was                                                               
treated as adopted.]                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked if  Representative Wolf  would be                                                               
willing to change the "$500" to "$1,000".                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 03-57, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 2979                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related  that he is trying  to make this                                                               
reasonable from the nonprofits' point of view.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF  said that the last  thing he wants to  do is                                                               
inhibit 501(3)(c)  [nonprofits], and therefore he  announced that                                                               
he would accept "$1,000" as a friendly amendment.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG offered  an  amendment  [to the  second                                                               
item on page 2 of Amendment  3], which would change the "$500" to                                                               
"$1,000"  rather than  "$2,000".   Therefore,  it  would read  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 1,                                                                                                            
          Delete "$500"                                                                                                         
          Insert "$1,000"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG offered  the  remainder of  page 2  [of                                                               
Amendment  3],  which  read   as  follows  [original  punctuation                                                               
provided]:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     At page 2, line 4; after "specificity, the"                                                                                
          Insert "lobbying"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     At page 2, lines 4-5:                                                                                                      
           Delete "proposed, the proposed budget, the                                                                           
      location, and the time period in which the lobbying                                                                       
     activity has occurred or will occur;"                                                                                      
          Insert "conducted, that has been either"                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     At page 2, line 6:                                                                                                         
          Delete "(2) of the notice"                                                                                            
          Insert "(i) published"                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     At page 2, lines 6-7:                                                                                                      
          Delete "; (3)"                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  then   directed   attention  to   the                                                               
following portion of the remainder of page 2 of Amendment 3:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 4-5:                                                                                                         
           Delete "proposed, the proposed budget, the                                                                           
        location, and time period in which the lobbying                                                                         
     activity has occurred or will occur;"                                                                                      
          Insert "conducted, that has been either"                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said that  the language  being inserted                                                               
doesn't make sense in the sentence.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOLF pointed  out that  it would  read "that  has                                                               
been either published not fewer than [two] times in eight days".                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said  that he had no  objection to that,                                                               
but he  asked if  Representative Wolf  would accept  changing the                                                               
language to refer to once in eight days.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF noted his agreement to once in eight days.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  moved that the committee  adopt another                                                               
amendment [to Amendment  3, which replaces the portion  of page 2                                                               
of Amendment 3 that refers to page 2, lines 4-5], as follows:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 4-6:                                                                                                         
           Delete "proposed, the proposed budget, the                                                                           
        location, and time period in which the lobbying                                                                         
     activity has occurred or will occur;                                                                                       
         (2) of the notice not fewer than two times in                                                                          
     eight days;"                                                                                                               
          Insert "the lobbying activity that has been                                                                           
     published"                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
There being  no objection, the  above amendment [to  Amendment 3]                                                               
was adopted.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 149 would be set aside.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
[HB 149 was taken up later in this meeting.]                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HJR  9-CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
[Contains discussion of HJR 26.]                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2720                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business would                                                                 
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Proposing amendments to the                                                                    
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to an appropriation                                                                
limit and a spending limit.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that before  the committee is CSHJR 9(W&M).                                                               
He further  noted that  two amendments have  been offered  to the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  moved that  the committee  adopt Amendment                                                               
1, which read as follows:                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 2, following "limit":                                                                                         
          Insert "and a spending limit"                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, add a new section to read:                                                                                         
          "(c) If appropriations for a fiscal year exceed                                                                     
     the amount that  may be appropriated under  (a) and (b)                                                                  
     of   this   section,    the   governor   shall   reduce                                                                  
     expenditures   by   the   executive  branch   for   its                                                                  
     operations and  administration to the  extent necessary                                                                  
     to  avoid spending  more than  the amount  that may  be                                                                  
     appropriated under (a) and (b) of this section."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that  the first change encompassed in                                                               
Amendment 1 is a title change.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  explained   that  this  resolution  would                                                               
implement a  constitutional spending  cap.  However,  the problem                                                               
is that  the legislature appropriates  and can,  and consistently                                                               
does  ignore  the  constitution   in  its  appropriations.    For                                                               
example, the legislature is supposed  to appropriate one-third of                                                               
all its  expenditures for capital  projects, but  the legislature                                                               
has consistently  ignored that.   Therefore, in  order to  have a                                                               
true  spending limit,  a mechanism  must be  built in.   The  new                                                               
subsection (c)  that Amendment 1  would add directs  the governor                                                               
to  use  the  line  item  veto  to  reduce  spending  within  the                                                               
administrative  branch in  order  to  maintain the  appropriation                                                               
cap.   This  language  merely  directs the  governor  to use  the                                                               
authority that he/she already has.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2578                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  asked  whether  it's  appropriate  for  the                                                               
legislature to  demand, in statute,  that the governor  use power                                                               
that he already has and can use at his/her prerogative.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his  belief that it is appropriate.                                                               
He  explained  that  the  legislature isn't  saying  it  wants  a                                                               
spending cap,  it's the people of  the state who want  a spending                                                               
cap,  one  that  is  real   and  enforceable.    Therefore,  this                                                               
[resolution] would  require that the legislature  not appropriate                                                               
more than  a certain  amount of  money and if  it does,  then the                                                               
governor would be  directed to lower those  expenditures with the                                                               
line item veto power the governor already has.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted his agreement  with the premise of [the                                                               
amendment].   He acknowledged that  this has grown from  the fact                                                               
that former  legislatures and governors  haven't lived up  to the                                                               
constitutional  mandates  of  balanced   budgets.    However,  he                                                               
questioned  why  one would  believe  it  would happen  by  merely                                                               
adding this provision to the constitution.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON explained  that the  requirement to  spend                                                               
one-third of the  budget on capital projects is  a requirement on                                                               
the legislature.  He said if  the people of Alaska want to direct                                                               
the  governor  to  exercise   authority,  that's  different  than                                                               
leaving  it  to the  governor  to  decide whether  he/she  should                                                               
override the  legislature when  the legislature  fails to  do its                                                               
job.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2434                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  pointed  out  that  there  is  clearly  tension                                                               
between  the legislative  and executive  branches,  which is  the                                                               
nature  of the  system.   Currently, the  legislature is  binding                                                               
itself to  appropriations.  Without proposed  subsection (c), the                                                               
governor would still  be able to exercise his/her  line item veto                                                               
prerogative   to    maintain   the    governor's   constitutional                                                               
responsibility  to uphold  the  constitution.   In  so doing  the                                                               
governor  could  specify  that  the   veto  is  mandated  by  the                                                               
restrictions   on  the   legislature   and  its   appropriations.                                                               
Therefore,  the proposed  subsection  (c)  wouldn't be  necessary                                                               
because [the line item veto]  would be inherent in the governor's                                                               
constitutional   responsibility   to   uphold  and   defend   the                                                               
constitution.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  said that  the above  would mean  that the                                                               
governor  is  taking  over  and  the governor,  in  lieu  of  the                                                               
legislature,  is   going  to  be  the   appropriating  authority.                                                               
Representative  Seaton  highlighted  that this  resolution  deals                                                               
with appropriations  and it attempts  to create a  spending limit                                                               
on the legislature.   However, the governor has  the authority to                                                               
actually  make  expenditures.   Representative  Seaton  specified                                                               
that  he didn't  want  the governor  to have  to  delve into  the                                                               
appropriation business, which is  the section that the resolution                                                               
addresses.   The  intent,  he  related, is  to  specify that  the                                                               
governor  is  to  exercise his/her  spending  authority  to  stay                                                               
within the appropriation limit placed on the legislature.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  asked  whether Representative  Seaton  believes                                                               
Amendment  1 would  give  the governor  more  authority over  the                                                               
legislature than currently exists in the constitution.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  replied   no.    Although  Representative                                                               
Seaton acknowledged  that the governor  has line item  veto power                                                               
without  the  adoption of  Amendment  1,  he specified  that  the                                                               
governor  doesn't  have  direction  to  have  a  spending  limit.                                                               
Without Amendment  1, the governor  would have to  determine that                                                               
the legislature  violated its appropriation limit  and would have                                                               
to  enter  into  an  appropriations  process  rather  than  being                                                               
directed by the people to  exercise the governor's veto authority                                                               
to the extent a spending cap is desired.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  surmised that Representative Seaton  viewed [the                                                               
proposed subsection (c)] as the "hammer."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  agreed.  Without [the  proposed subsection                                                               
(c)],  the  legislature,  if  it  so  desires,  will  ignore  the                                                               
spending  cap.   With this  language, the  legislature will  know                                                               
that  it  will have  to  constrain  the appropriations  into  the                                                               
constitutional limit  put in place  or the governor will  use the                                                               
line item veto authority to [cap] spending.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2225                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
GINGER BLAISDELL,  Staff to  Representative John  Stoltze, Alaska                                                               
State Legislature, spoke on behalf of  the sponsor of HJR 9.  Ms.                                                               
Blaisdell said she may be able  to provide a practical example in                                                               
which  the legislature  may intend  to keep  their appropriations                                                               
within  the appropriation  limit, but  when the  accountants read                                                               
the  language  and  interpret  how  the money  is  used,  it  may                                                               
actually exceed  the appropriation limit.   She pointed  out that                                                               
this happens  every year in  the difference between  the inactive                                                               
budget in the fiscal summary  and the authorized number, which is                                                               
typically the larger number.   In fiscal year (FY03), the enacted                                                               
budget  is  $3,399.4 million  while  the  FY03 actual  authorized                                                               
budget,  which is  done on  July  1st after  everything has  been                                                               
interpreted  and  balances of  funds  have  carried forward,  was                                                               
$3,495.9   million.     Therefore,  there   was  a   $90  million                                                               
difference.  The aforementioned may  be an instance in which this                                                               
instruction to adjust the appropriation would come into effect.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG remarked  that  the  difference in  the                                                               
amounts may  have been because  of previously  appropriated funds                                                               
that hadn't lapsed.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BLAISDELL replied  no and  explained  that there  has to  be                                                               
specific  language in  each fiscal  year's appropriation  measure                                                               
that  would allow  lapsing money  to carry  forward, remain  in a                                                               
fund, or be deposited back into the general fund.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG interjected  that he  was referring  to                                                               
capital projects  that go  for five  years, which  may be  in the                                                               
[actual authorized budget] figure.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL replied no and  explained that capital projects are                                                               
only accounted for  at the time of appropriation.   She said that                                                               
the $90 million difference could  be due to [anti-lapse] language                                                               
in the bill.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2080                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned to  [Amendment 1] with which he                                                               
saw two different problems.  As  written, this might be read by a                                                               
court to give  the governor the authority  to unilaterally reduce                                                               
[the budget]  without the  legislature being  able to  override a                                                               
line item veto.   Therefore, in order to preserve  the balance of                                                               
power, Representative Gruenberg said  [Amendment 1] would have to                                                               
be  amended to  state that  "using his  line item  veto he  shall                                                               
reduce".   Without the  aforementioned language,  the legislature                                                               
would have no right to  override [the governor's line item veto].                                                               
Furthermore,   these    constitutional   provisions    are   read                                                               
differently than  statute; constitutional provisions  are written                                                               
very  sparingly.   Representative  Gruenberg  recommended that  a                                                               
letter   of   intent   from  the   legislature   specifying   the                                                               
legislature's intent  that specific language appear  in the voter                                                               
pamphlet would be appropriate because  it would become a key part                                                               
of the legislative history of  the constitutional amendment.  The                                                               
courts almost  always look  to the language  that's in  the voter                                                               
pamphlet  as the  main legislative  history  of a  constitutional                                                               
amendment.  He asked if  Representative Seaton would consider the                                                               
aforementioned approach.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1899                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  inquired as to Representative  Seaton's thoughts                                                               
if subsection (c) read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     "(c)  If appropriations  for a  fiscal year  exceed the                                                                  
     amount that  may be appropriated  under (a) and  (b) of                                                                  
     this  section, the  governor shall  reduce expenditures                                                                  
     by line item veto."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  said the  problem with the  above language                                                               
is that  [the legislature] doesn't  want to tell the  governor to                                                               
reduce the judiciary  or the legislative branch.   There could be                                                               
a problem with budgetary crossover  between the three branches of                                                               
government.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  pointed out,  "If  you  don't  want to  do  the                                                               
legislative  branch,   you're  binding  them  to   the  executive                                                               
branch."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  specified that it means  everything within                                                               
the state that's not in the executive or legislative branch.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  proposed  then  that  subsection  (c)  read  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     "(c)  If appropriations  for a  fiscal year  exceed the                                                                  
     amount that  may be appropriated  under (a) and  (b) of                                                                  
     this  section, the  governor shall  reduce expenditures                                                                  
     in the executive branch by line item veto."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG remarked  that  he  believes this  will                                                               
cause more problems than it will solve.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1820                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BLAISDELL  recalled  this  being brought  up  in  the  House                                                               
Special  Committee on  Ways and  Means when  Tam Cook,  Director,                                                               
Legislative  Research   and  Services,  was  asked   whether  the                                                               
legislature  would maintain  the power  of veto.   Ms.  Cook said                                                               
that  this is  clearly direction  to  the governor  to not  spend                                                               
money  that  hasn't been  appropriated.    Therefore, she  didn't                                                               
believe this would be interpreted as a veto issue.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted agreement,  and related  that the                                                               
way  [Amendment   1]  is  written   now,  it  would   divest  the                                                               
legislature of any right to override.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL  corrected Representative Gruenberg by  saying that                                                               
was the  response to  adding this language  back.   Ms. Blaisdell                                                               
recalled that Ms.  Cook had suggested that if HJR  9 or a version                                                               
of  it  were to  pass,  the  legislature  may need  to  introduce                                                               
statutory language  setting legislative standards with  regard to                                                               
how the governor would reduce spending.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1735                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM  asked  if  Representative  Stoltze  is                                                               
comfortable with Amendment 1.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL replied yes.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   recalled  that  Ms.  Cook   said  the                                                               
legislature would  set the standards.   However, Ms.  Cook didn't                                                               
directly say  whether the legislature,  under this,  would retain                                                               
any authority  to veto.   Representative  Gruenberg said  that he                                                               
didn't  believe the  legislature  would retain  any authority  to                                                               
veto.  If the legislature doesn't  have any authority to veto, he                                                               
noted  that  he  would  have serious  legal  questions  regarding                                                               
whether  the   legislature  would  have  any   authority  to  set                                                               
standards.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1639                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  announced  that  he would  accept,  as  a                                                               
friendly amendment, Chair  Weyhrauch's suggestion that subsection                                                               
(c) read as follows:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     "(c)  If appropriations  for a  fiscal year  exceed the                                                                  
     amount that  may be appropriated  under (a) and  (b) of                                                                  
     this  section, the  governor shall  reduce expenditures                                                                  
     by the executive branch by line item veto."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  related his understanding that  the governor                                                               
could do a line item veto for anything.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  agreed  and  pointed   out  that  the  proposed                                                               
subsection (c) eliminates a lot of language.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON interjected that  with the approval of this                                                               
[constitutional] amendment  the people would direct  the governor                                                               
to use the line item veto to keep within the spending limit.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1516                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  continued  to  urge  that  the  intent                                                               
[expressed in  Chair Weyhrauch's  friendly amendment]  be related                                                               
in  a  letter  of  intent.    Politically,  if  this  is  in  the                                                               
constitution, those who don't like  the [friendly] amendment will                                                               
seize on this  portion.  These folks will make  the argument that                                                               
this  language will  insulate the  [legislature] from  charges of                                                               
excessive  spending.    Under  current  constitutional  law,  the                                                               
governor can  veto some legislative expenditures  if the governor                                                               
feels  the  legislature is  spending  too  much.   However,  this                                                               
[friendly  amendment]  wouldn't  allow   the  governor  to  [veto                                                               
those].  On  the one hand, one doesn't want  to upset the balance                                                               
of power,  but on  the other  hand one doesn't  want to  leave it                                                               
open for  the argument that  the legislature has  exempted itself                                                               
again.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  surmised that this [resolution]  attempts to                                                               
solve  the difference  between an  enacted  versus an  authorized                                                               
budget.  He  asked if this directive to the  governor helps solve                                                               
that.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL  pointed out that  with the friendly  amendment the                                                               
language  referring  to  spending  is eliminated.    Spending  is                                                               
different  than  appropriating, she  noted.    For example,  with                                                               
Medicaid spending  the governor  has been allowed  to spend  at a                                                               
rate greater  than the administration knows  it has appropriation                                                               
authority  and  thus supplemental  spending  is  requested.   The                                                               
aforementioned is  a spending  issue and has  nothing to  do with                                                               
legislative appropriations.  Ms.  Blaisdell also pointed out that                                                               
two different directives are given  depending upon which language                                                               
is used from [the friendly amendments].                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM related  that he  is interested  in ensuring                                                               
that  when  appropriations  are made  the  spending  matches  the                                                               
appropriation.  Representative Holm  remarked that he didn't know                                                               
what  language   is  necessary  to  make   this  constitutionally                                                               
mandated.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   WEYHRAUCH   said   [this   resolution]   is   making   it                                                               
constitutionally mandated.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  pointed  out  that  the  constitution  also                                                               
mandates that there should be  a balanced budget, but that hasn't                                                               
been done.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG informed the  committee that he has been                                                               
researching this  matter and  has been  told that  Alaska doesn't                                                               
have a  constitutional balanced budget amendment,  although there                                                               
is a statute that requires it.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   SEATON  reminded   members  that   there  is   a                                                               
constitutionally mandated capital  expenditure provision that has                                                               
been consistently ignored.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that,  but pointed out that                                                               
the constitutionally mandated capital expenditure is too high.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded everyone  that this only occurs if                                                               
the   legislature's  budget   increases  by   2  percent   twice.                                                               
Hopefully, this year's budget will decrease.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BLAISDELL mentioned  that even  with all  the decreases  and                                                               
reductions there is  an increase of $124 million  [in this year's                                                               
budget].                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH reminded  the committee  that before  it is  the                                                               
earlier mentioned friendly amendment to Amendment 1.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  asked if  printing the intent  language in                                                               
the  voter pamphlet  would suffice  in instructing  the executive                                                               
branch.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0999                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed  out that the court always  looks to what                                                               
the constitution  says as well  as the legislative history.   The                                                               
first  interpreter  will  be the  attorney  general  when  he/she                                                               
advises the  governor.  If the  matter is challenged by  a court,                                                               
then the court  will probably review what the  legislature did in                                                               
adopting the  language.   If the legislature  adopts a  letter to                                                               
accompany  this  resolution  and  indicates  the  intent  of  the                                                               
legislature,  it  would,  he believes,  have  great  weight  with                                                               
respect to the court's ultimate decision.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM remarked  that without  an elected  attorney                                                               
general  it  becomes  a  "sticky  wicket"  because  an  appointed                                                               
attorney general is  being asked by the  individual who appointed                                                               
him/her to render a decision.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  commented that folks  have to  be intellectually                                                               
honest.   Furthermore, there is  always the court system  and the                                                               
legislature can sue the governor as well.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0912                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG    highlighted   that   constitutional                                                               
amendments are voted  on by the people,  and therefore ultimately                                                               
the  court reviews  the  wording  of the  constitution.   In  the                                                               
aforementioned it becomes  a legislature of the  number of people                                                               
who vote.   The court  would say that  the people were  voting on                                                               
the  amendment as  it  was specifically  presented  in the  voter                                                               
pamphlet.  Therefore,  Representative Gruenberg again recommended                                                               
passing a letter of intent along with the resolution.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON requested  that  Chair Weyhrauch  withdraw                                                               
his friendly amendment to Amendment 1.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH withdrew his friendly amendment to Amendment 1.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON   clarified  the  friendly   amendment  to                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     "(c)  If appropriations  for a  fiscal year  exceed the                                                                  
     amount that  may be appropriated  under (a) and  (b) of                                                                  
     this  section, the  governor shall  reduce expenditures                                                                  
     by  line item  veto  to avoid  spending  more than  the                                                                  
     amount that  may be appropriated  under (a) and  (b) of                                                                  
     this section."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM   inquired  as  to  why   the  language                                                               
"operation and administration" need to be left out.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered:                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     It's just words.   What we're doing is  also taking out                                                                    
     "the  executive branch"  because once  we put  in "line                                                                    
     item veto"  that gets us  out of this problem  ... that                                                                    
     we're  going to  get beat  up because  we're insulating                                                                    
     ourselves and putting it off  on somebody else.  But we                                                                    
     could  always   come  back  into  special   session  to                                                                    
     override line item vetoes.   ... This means that he has                                                                    
     the  same  authority  he does  for  appropriating  that                                                                    
     reduction between legislative,  judicial, and executive                                                                    
     branch.  And most of it's  going to be in the executive                                                                    
     branch because that's what he controls.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM  inquired as to how  the legislature can                                                               
come  back   into  session  without  the   governor  calling  the                                                               
legislature back.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  explained that the  legislature can  call itself                                                               
back.  He posed the following scenario:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     If    the   legislature    exceeds   the    amount   of                                                                    
     appropriations  under [subsections]  (a)  and (b),  the                                                                    
     governor  exercises  the  line  item veto  to  get  ...                                                                    
     appropriations  below [subsections]  (a)  and (b),  the                                                                    
     legislature doesn't  like what  the governor  did, [the                                                                    
     legislature] comes  back into session to  override line                                                                    
     item  vetoes, puts  it back  above  the spending  limit                                                                    
     (indisc. -  coughing) never ending  thing.  So,  what I                                                                    
     suppose  is ...  we'll  have to  decide it  politically                                                                    
     where we're deciding to cut  and where to spend because                                                                    
     the governor  said I'm going  to keep doing  this until                                                                    
     we reach  the limit.  ...  And we'll just be  back here                                                                    
     for  special  session  after  special  session  arguing                                                                    
     about where the line item veto should or shouldn't be.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL  remarked that she  believes the  above possibility                                                               
is why there  was the recommendation to enact  statute that would                                                               
instruct the governor on how to reduce spending.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0522                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that  the legislature can come                                                               
back into [special] session by  the governor calling it back into                                                               
session, which  is the most  common matter.  The  legislature can                                                               
call itself back  into [special] session if the  majority of each                                                               
house so desires, which is rare.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred Representative  Dahlstrom to Article II,                                                               
Section 9, which specifies the parameters of special sessions.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  interjected that an override  of a line                                                               
item veto requires  a three-quarters vote.  In  the past, leaders                                                               
have been polled.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  reminded  everyone that  a  three-quarter                                                               
vote must  be obtained  in order  to tap  that second  2 percent.                                                               
Therefore,  this is  a  high bar  because  [the legislature]  has                                                               
difficulty in  controlling spending.   He  pointed out  that just                                                               
acting on appropriations and not on spending is problematic.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0335                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM recalled that  certain items didn't need                                                               
to be mentioned  because clarification was provided  in the voter                                                               
pamphlet.  Therefore,  she asked if anything a  candidate says in                                                               
the voter pamphlet would hold up in court.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded that it  was probably different because                                                               
when one is voting on a  person, one isn't binding anyone to what                                                               
the candidate says, save the  candidate.  Candidate's comments in                                                               
the   voter  pamphlet   are  different   than  a   constitutional                                                               
[amendment] or  statute [in which  the pamphlet] is  treated like                                                               
legislative history.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  clarified that  what he has  said holds                                                               
true  to initiatives  or referendums.   However,  because it's  a                                                               
collective statement  that goes  to all the  voters, it  would be                                                               
more carefully reviewed than a candidate's statements.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH   referred  to  Article  II,   Section  16,  and                                                               
highlighted the following language:   "Bills to raise revenue and                                                               
appropriation  bills or  items,  although vetoed,  become law  by                                                               
affirmative  vote  of  three-fourths  of the  membership  of  the                                                               
legislature. Other  vetoed bills  become law by  affirmative vote                                                               
of two-thirds of the membership of the legislature."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  reminded  the   committee  that  there  was  no                                                               
objection  to  Representative   Seaton's  friendly  amendment  to                                                               
Amendment 1.   There being  no objection, the  friendly amendment                                                               
to Amendment 1 was adopted.   After the adoption of this friendly                                                               
amendment to Amendment 1, Amendment 1 as amended read:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 2, following, "limit":                                                                                        
          Insert "and a spending limit"                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, add a new section to read:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          "(c) If appropriations for a fiscal year exceed                                                                     
     the amount that  may be appropriated under  (a) and (b)                                                                  
     of   this   section,    the   governor   shall   reduce                                                                  
     expenditures by  line item veto to  avoid spending more                                                                  
     than the amount that may  be appropriated under (a) and                                                                  
     (b) of this section."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH clarified  that now  Amendment 1  as amended  is                                                               
before the committee.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 03-58, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0031                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL, in response to  Representative Holm, said that she                                                               
didn't have an opinion on  the friendly amendment to Amendment 1.                                                               
Including "spending" [on page 1,  line 2] does support the change                                                           
in the title.   Therefore, she said she believes  [Amendment 1 as                                                               
amended]  is  fine.   In  response  to Representative  Lynn,  Ms.                                                               
Blaisdell agreed  that she sees  no problem with Amendment  1 [as                                                               
amended].                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   SEATON   added   that   he   has   spoken   with                                                               
Representative Stoltze who  is in favor of  Amendment 1, although                                                               
he hadn't spoken with him regarding Amendment 1 as amended.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Holm,  Seaton,                                                               
Dahlstrom, and  Lynn voted in  favor of Amendment 1,  as amended.                                                               
Representatives  Gruenberg   and  Weyhrauch  voted   against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 1,  as amended, was adopted by a  vote of 4-                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0240                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH,  in explanation  of his  vote on  the amendment,                                                               
directed  attention   to  Article   IX,  Section  16,   which  he                                                               
characterized as  one of the  most obtuse, confusing,  and poorly                                                               
worded amendments he  has ever read.  He expressed  his desire to                                                               
keep  Alaska's  constitution as  clean  and  simple as  possible.                                                               
Although he is  going to err on the side  of simplicity, he noted                                                               
that he  reserved the  right to  change his  vote on  this matter                                                               
later.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 0395                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   DAHLSTROM  moved   that   the  committee   adopt                                                               
Amendment 2, which read:                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, beginning on line 19 (changes as follows):                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          Section 30. Application, [Repeal] Reconsideration                                                                 
     of  Appropriation  and  Spending Limit.  (a)  The  2004                                                                
     amendment relating  to an appropriation  limit (art.IX,                                                                    
     sec.  16)  first  applies to  appropriations  made  for                                                                    
     fiscal  year  2006  and   applies  [each  fiscal  year]                                                                    
     thereafter [until fiscal year 2013].                                                                                       
          (b) [Section 16 of Article IX is repealed July 1,                                                                     
     2012] The  lieutenant governor  shall place  the ballot                                                                
     title and  proposition for the 2004  amendment relating                                                                
     to an  appropriation and spending limit  (art. IX, Sec.                                                                
     16)  on the  ballot again  at the  general election  in                                                                
     2010  and  every  six years  thereafter  unless  it  is                                                                
     rejected.   If  the  majority of  those  voting on  the                                                                
     proposition  rejects  the   amendment,  Section  16  of                                                                
     Article  IX is  repealed on  the date  the election  is                                                                
     certified.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0510                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL explained  that under the current  language [in the                                                               
resolution] the  constitutional appropriation and  spending limit                                                               
would be repealed after six  years, with no further consideration                                                               
required.   Amendment 2  removes the  language "Repeal"  and asks                                                               
for reconsideration.   She  informed the  committee that  she had                                                               
assumed  that   Amendment  1  would   pass,  and   therefore  she                                                               
reinserted the language "and spending"  as well as Representative                                                               
Stoltze's   original    language   that   would    instruct   the                                                               
constitutional appropriation  spending limit to be  placed on the                                                               
ballot  every six  years.   Therefore, the  public would  vote on                                                               
whether it wanted  to continue it as is, or  choose to change it,                                                               
or repeal it.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  related his understanding  that [Amendment                                                               
2] would mean that this  constitutional provision would be placed                                                               
on the ballot every six years for reconfirmation.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL highlighted  that page 14 of  her handout entitled,                                                               
"HJR   9  Constitutional   Appropriation  and   Spending  Limit,"                                                               
provides a simplified  explanation of Amendment 2.   If Amendment                                                               
2 isn't adopted, the  constitutional appropriation spending limit                                                               
would be repealed at the end  of 2012, at which point there would                                                               
be no limit.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0699                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  said  that  he  has  a  real  problem  with                                                               
[Amendment 2] because theoretically,  the constitution is already                                                               
revisited every 10 years.   Representative Holm remarked that the                                                               
reliance  on  the  constitution  is at  a  different  level  than                                                               
statutes.  He  asked Ms. Blaisdell if any  other constitution has                                                               
a proviso similar to the one being proposed here.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL noted that she  worked with the National Conference                                                               
of State Legislatures (NCSL) on this  and found that there are no                                                               
other states or territories that  have any type of constitutional                                                               
sunset clause.   Therefore,  were this to  pass, Alaska  would be                                                               
the first.  Ms. Blaisdell related  that the intent of this sunset                                                               
clause  is  so  that  [the   appropriation  cap]  doesn't  become                                                               
exponentially out  of control  as is the  case with  the original                                                               
constitutional appropriation  limit.  This [sunset  clause] would                                                               
probably  mean that  reviewing  the constitutional  appropriation                                                               
limit would become a priority.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  said that he  thinks of the  constitution in                                                               
terms of being  almost unchangeable versus the  volatility of the                                                               
statutes.  Therefore, he viewed this notion as problematic.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  noted that he  didn't view Amendment  2 or                                                               
Sections 2 and 3 as being  necessary.  If [the appropriation cap]                                                               
isn't working, the  legislature has the ability to  propose a new                                                               
constitutional  amendment at  any time.    He said  he wasn't  in                                                               
favor of [Amendment 2].                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 0989                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL, in response  to Representative Dahlstrom, answered                                                               
that Representative Stoltze isn't in  favor of a repeal clause in                                                               
which  the appropriation  limit  would go  away.   Ms.  Blaisdell                                                               
mentioned that timing  of an appropriation and  spending limit is                                                               
critical.  If the Arctic  National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) were to                                                               
open and  the [appropriation] limit  ended in eight  years, there                                                               
would  be an  enormous spike  [in  spending] similar  to that  in                                                               
1980,  which  caused  some  of  the failure  in  1985  and  1986.                                                               
Therefore,  Ms. Blaisdell  didn't believe  Representative Stoltze                                                               
would  be  in  favor  of the  appropriation  limit  merely  being                                                               
repealed.     However,  Representative  Stoltze  might   be  more                                                               
favorable  to the  removal of  the entire  section, although  she                                                               
recalled that he was in favor of the sunset provision.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG recalled  his prior  experience in  the                                                               
legislature when there was more money.   At that time, money that                                                               
isn't  available today  was available  for operating  capital and                                                               
social projects.   As a result, when that money  was available it                                                               
benefited the  state, a state that  needs to develop itself.   If                                                               
ANWR and a  gas pipeline were in  place, Representative Gruenberg                                                               
said he  wouldn't want to  have to  amend the constitution  to do                                                               
what is necessary.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH directed the committee's  attention to the motion                                                               
to adopt Amendment 2.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG maintained  his objection  to Amendment                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representative Lynn  voted in favor                                                               
of  Amendment  2.     Representatives  Seaton,  Gruenberg,  Holm,                                                               
Dahlstrom, and Weyhrauch voted against  it.  Therefore, Amendment                                                               
2 failed by a vote of 1-5.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that when  the state is flushed with                                                               
money, perhaps  that is  the time  when the  coffers of  the bank                                                               
should be filled.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed  out that the state  does have a                                                               
spending  limit  of  sorts  in the  permanent  fund  because  the                                                               
[state]  is prohibited  from spending  all  of the  money and  at                                                               
least 25 percent has to be placed in the permanent fund.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1440                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  moved that the committee  adopt Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 3, as follows:                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2:                                                                                                                    
          Delete lines 17-23.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON said  that  this automatic  repeal of  the                                                               
appropriation   limit   seems   inappropriate  because   if   the                                                               
constitutional  amendment  doesn't  have  any more  term  than  a                                                               
statute,  it   isn't  worth  it.     Therefore,   he  recommended                                                               
implementing  the  constitutional  amendment and  if  it  doesn't                                                               
work, the matter can be revisited.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   pointed  out  that   the  legislature                                                               
doesn't know  the state  of the  economy in  2012.   He explained                                                               
that [Section 2] basically says  that if the [legislature] wishes                                                               
to continue with this spending limit  it should be put before the                                                               
voters  in or  before 2012.   Therefore,  there would  be another                                                               
review of  the matter by  the voters.   He reiterated that  he is                                                               
opposed to Conceptual Amendment 3.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1610                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that  he supported Conceptual Amendment                                                               
3  simply because  this should  look more  like a  constitutional                                                               
amendment than  a statute.   As a  body, the legislature  has the                                                               
ability to  [call itself]  into session and  the people  have the                                                               
ability to petition  to call the legislature back  in to session.                                                               
Furthermore,   this  is   making  a   policy  decision   and  the                                                               
legislature ought to live with it or not adopt it.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  pointed out that currently  there is an                                                               
unintelligible,    unenforceable    spending   limit    in    the                                                               
constitution, Article IX,  Section 16.  "If we had  had this kind                                                               
of thing in, we might have amended it before now," he remarked.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BLAISDELL  informed  the committee  that  if  Representative                                                               
Seaton's  amendment doesn't  pass,  a  small technical  amendment                                                               
changing the title of Section  30 to "Repeal of Appropriation and                                                               
Spending Limit" would be required.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1700                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives  Dahlstrom, Holm,                                                               
Seaton, and Weyhrauch  voted in favor of  Conceptual Amendment 3.                                                               
Representatives Lynn and Gruenberg  voted against it.  Therefore,                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 3 passed by a vote of 4-2.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH directed  attention  to page  1,  line 6,  which                                                               
encompasses a 10-point spending plan.   He asked if paragraph (2)                                                               
could be deleted.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL directed  the committee to page 10  of her handout,                                                               
which  specifies that  paragraph (1)  refers to  an appropriation                                                               
into the Alaska  Permanent Fund.  There have been  times in which                                                               
revenues  were  above  the  25 percent  or  50  percent  mandated                                                               
deposit  and thus,  at those  times, more  money has  been placed                                                               
into the  principle of  the fund.   She explained  that paragraph                                                               
(2) refers to expenditures out of the Alaska Permanent Fund.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1840                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH   pointed  out  that   under  HJR  26   and  the                                                               
accompanying statutory scheme  there would be a 60:40  split.  He                                                               
inquired  as to  the synergy  between  HJR 26  and the  statutory                                                               
scheme implementing it and paragraphs (1) and (2) of HJR 9.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL  explained that HJR  9 instructs how the  base will                                                               
be calculated  for the  2 percent growth  while HJR  26 instructs                                                               
the  use  of  permanent  fund   money  to  become  available  for                                                               
expenditure.   Therefore, it's the  difference between  a revenue                                                               
source  and  an  expenditure  source.    If  the  permanent  fund                                                               
appropriations  or  deposits  aren't   excluded  from  the  base,                                                               
fluctuations in  the permanent fund  may not be reflective  of an                                                               
appropriation limit.  For example,  if the permanent fund dropped                                                               
this year to  $500, it could adjust the base  spending limit by a                                                               
little over  $750 million.   She pointed out  that HJR 26  is the                                                               
revenue stream and HJR 9 is the appropriation limit.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  posed a  situation in  which HJR  9 and                                                               
HJR  26  go before  the  voters.   He  pointed  out  that HJR  26                                                               
eliminates  the difference  between principle  and income  in the                                                               
permanent fund.  Therefore, the  concept of income from the fund,                                                               
particularly  with  the  possibility  of  HB  298,  is  going  to                                                               
potentially change to include unrealized  income.  He related his                                                               
belief that  [HJR 9] may  have to be  drafted such that  it would                                                               
accommodate the  passage or failure  of HJR 26.   Furthermore, if                                                               
there  is a  balanced  budget constitutional  amendment, it  will                                                               
interplay with HJR 9  as well.  He indicated that  there may be a                                                               
time at  which there will  have to  be a decision  made regarding                                                               
whether to combine some of  these amendments into a single ballot                                                               
measure.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2069                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  posed a scenario  in which the  percent of                                                               
market value (POMV)  proposal goes into effect and  60 percent of                                                               
that is  used for state  funds.  He asked  if that is  covered in                                                               
paragraph (2)  of CSHJR  9(W&M).   He also  asked if  the section                                                               
dealing with government is included in paragraph (1).                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BLAISDELL  clarified that  HJR  26  isn't incorporated  into                                                               
either of  these two scenarios.   One is a specific  deposit into                                                               
the permanent fund  while the other is a specific  payment out of                                                               
the permanent fund or a dividend to the people.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised then  that any other appropriation                                                               
out of the permanent fund, on  a POMV basis, for state government                                                               
would [be calculated in the base].                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL agreed.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  inquired  as   to  how  to  deal  with                                                               
inflation as well as unforeseen crises that aren't "disasters".                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  remarked that he  wanted those to be  dealt with                                                               
in  the  House Judiciary  Standing  Committee.   He  then  turned                                                               
attention to page  2, lines 11-16, of  CSHJR 9(W&M), particularly                                                               
the language  excluding the appropriations listed  in (a)(1)-(10)                                                               
and  pointed out  that paragraph  (8) is  a reappropriation.   He                                                               
asked if the  language on page 2, lines 11-16,  should also refer                                                               
to reappropriation.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.   BLAISDELL  informed   the   committee   that  currently   a                                                               
reappropriation hasn't  been counted  in the fiscal  summary, but                                                               
is basically shown as a  zero appropriation amount because it was                                                               
accounted for in a prior fiscal year.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH   inquired  as  to  why   this  [constitutional]                                                               
amendment even needs reappropriation addressed at all.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BLAISDELL answered,  clarification, because  technically the                                                               
legislature is appropriating that money.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   WEYHRAUCH   asked   if  the   language   specified   that                                                               
appropriations  and   reappropriations  are  being   excluded  in                                                               
(a)(1)-(10) would provide more clarity.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.   BLAISDELL   replied   no   because   reappropriations   are                                                               
appropriated each  year.  She  related her  belief that it's   an                                                               
issue of semantics.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  suggested moving  the language in  paragraph (8)                                                               
to after "to" on  page 1, line 9, to be  followed by the language                                                               
"and  to an  appropriation" and  then list  the paragraphs.   The                                                               
paragraphs would  no longer need  to say "an appropriation".   He                                                               
explained that  he was  seeking to  wordsmith this  resolution to                                                               
make it as simple as possible.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL said that would make total sense.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  moved  that   the  committee  adopt  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4, which  would on page 1, line 9,  after "to", insert,                                                               
"a  reappropriation  of  money   already  appropriated  under  an                                                               
unobligated appropriation  that is not  void under Section  13 of                                                               
this article and  to an appropriation" and on page  1, lines 10 -                                                               
page 2,  line 7,  delete "an appropriation"  at the  beginning of                                                               
paragraphs  (1)-(10).    There  being  no  objection,  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 4 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2507                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  moved   that   the  committee   adopt                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 5 as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
         Page 1, line 7 and page 2, line 14, after "two                                                                         
     percent":                                                                                                                  
          Insert "(excluding inflation)"                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he  is trying to say that                                                               
there is  a concept of  inflation, but no  one knows how  much it                                                               
will be in  any year.  However, the  inflation could considerably                                                               
reduce the 2  percent and thus there would be  no ability to even                                                               
keep pace with  inflation.  Therefore, he wanted to  be sure that                                                               
if there is inflation that it's considered.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  offered a  friendly amendment  to Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  5 such  that it  would insert  "(including inflation)"                                                               
rather  than  "(excluding  inflation)".   He  explained  that  he                                                               
believes this [resolution]  attempts to formulate a  way in which                                                               
to limit  the growth  of government.   He  indicated that  he was                                                               
trying  to [accomplish  what Representative  Gruenberg described]                                                               
while keeping the lid down on  the ability of government to grow.                                                               
He pointed  out that 2  percent plus  5 percent inflation  sums 7                                                               
percent growth.   However, 2  percent, including  inflation means                                                               
that it  can be  5 percent  and maintain 2  percent as  the upper                                                               
limit.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH announced  that  he was  going  to vote  against                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 5  because he believes it  should be brought                                                               
up in  the House Finance  Committee where the  full ramifications                                                               
can be considered.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 5.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
[The friendly amendment to Conceptual  Amendment 5 was considered                                                               
withdrawn.]                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM moved  to report  CSHJR 9(W&M),  as amended,                                                               
out  of   committee  with  individual  recommendations   and  the                                                               
accompanying  fiscal  notes.   There  being  no objection,  CSHJR                                                               
9(STA)  was  reported  from  the  House  State  Affairs  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2745                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, at 10:25 a.m.,  recessed the House State Affairs                                                               
Standing Committee to a call of the chair.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 03-59, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  called the  meeting of  the House  State Affairs                                                               
Standing Committee  back to order  at 3:06 p.m.   Representatives                                                               
Weyhrauch, Holm, Seaton,  and Dahlstrom were present  at the call                                                               
back to  order.   Representatives Lynn  and Gruenberg  arrived as                                                               
the meeting was in progress.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB 149-LOBBYING BY NONPROFITS                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  returned  to  HOUSE   BILL  NO.  149,  "An  Act                                                               
requiring nonprofit corporations under  the Alaska Net Income Tax                                                               
Act to provide  prior public notice of  lobbying expenditures and                                                               
an annual  report of lobbying  expenditures to the  Department of                                                               
Revenue; providing  for a  civil penalty  for failure  to provide                                                               
the notice; and providing for an effective date."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee  that it was going through                                                               
the  handwritten Amendment  3  earlier in  the  meeting when  the                                                               
committee  left off  on  page 3  of  Amendment 3.    He asked  if                                                               
Representative  Wolf  is  amenable  to  page  3  and  page  4  of                                                               
Amendment 3, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     At page 2, line 10:                                                                                                        
          Delete "and"                                                                                                          
          Insert "(ii) delivered by mail or electronic                                                                          
     means  to the  members of  the corporation  or, if  the                                                                    
     corporation is  not a  membership organization,  to its                                                                    
     board of directors                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
       (2)  for   lobbying  expenditures   incurred  between                                                                    
     January 1  and June 30  of a calendar year,  the notice                                                                    
     provided  under subsection  (1) shall  be published  or                                                                    
     delivered no  less than thirty  (30) days after  July 1                                                                    
     of the  same calendar year.   For lobbying expenditures                                                                    
     incurred between July  1 and December 31  of a calendar                                                                    
     year, the  notice provided  under subsection  (1) shall                                                                    
     be  published or  delivered no  less  than thirty  (30)                                                                    
     days after January 1 of the succeeding calendar year.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
       (3)  Each  corporation  subject  to  this  Act  shall                                                                    
     maintain  in  its  corporate headquarters  a  true  and                                                                    
     correct copy  of each notice provided  under subsection                                                                    
     (1) for  a period of  not less than two  calendar years                                                                    
     after publication or delivery.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     At page 2, lines 17-23:                                                                                                    
          Delete all.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF replied yes.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified  that Amendment 3 [in  its entirety] is                                                               
before the  committee.  He recalled  that it had been  moved.  He                                                               
expressed interest  in adopting Amendment 3  and incorporating it                                                               
into a committee  substitute (CS) so that the  committee can have                                                               
a clean version with all the changes.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0200                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM informed  the  committee  that she  and                                                               
Representative  Wolf had  a conversation  regarding her  proposed                                                               
conceptual amendment  to change  the yearly  gross revenue  to at                                                               
least $10 million.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOLF  said that  [$10  million]  is an  excessive                                                               
amount.  In response  to Representative Dahlstrom, Representative                                                               
Wolf  announced  that he  was  comfortable  with revenues  of  $1                                                               
million.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked  if there was any objection  to Amendment 3                                                               
as amended.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.  He  directed attention to page 3                                                               
of Amendment  3 and  commented that  sub-subparagraph (ii)  is an                                                               
expensive requirement to which he is opposed.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOLF  pointed   out  that  sub-subparagraph  (ii)                                                               
specifies  that   information  can  be  "delivered   by  mail  or                                                               
electronic means".                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  related his belief that  this is excessive                                                               
interference with a  501(c)(3) for a purpose that  he hasn't been                                                               
able  to  define  yet.     Representative  Seaton  announced  his                                                               
opposition to [Amendment 3 as amended].                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF specified that  his biggest concern with this                                                               
matter  is  the  public's  trust with  regard  to  disclosure  of                                                               
501(c)(3) nonprofits.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0535                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  noted that  one of  the biggest  questions about                                                               
this legislation  is whether this  is already covered  by federal                                                               
law.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOLF explained  that  the IRS  has  a mandate  to                                                               
manage    501(c)(3)   nonprofit    organizations   to    maintain                                                               
insubstantial lobbying efforts.   The IRS has  openly stated that                                                               
it  doesn't  have  the  means  or  the  time  to  police  850,000                                                               
nonprofits nationwide.  This legislation  would merely return the                                                               
public's trust in the 501(c)(3) nonprofits in Alaska.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that he hasn't  heard of any problem in this                                                               
arena at  the state  level.   He asked, "Is  there an  issue that                                                               
this bill is in search of?"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOLF answered  that nonprofit  organizations step                                                               
into Alaska  on the issue of  predator control.  He  charged that                                                               
such nonprofits  enter Alaska and  line their accounts  with soft                                                               
money [under the guise] of killing  wolves.  The intent with this                                                               
legislation is to implement something  that when a local resident                                                               
makes a  contribution to  a nonprofit, there  will be  an attempt                                                               
[made by  the nonprofit] to  relate to the contributor  where the                                                               
contributions were used.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN asked  if this  would  include those  groups                                                               
lobbying against the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF replied yes, if those groups are lobbying.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH,  upon reviewing the  third page of  Amendment 3,                                                               
said that he had a problem with it because its burdensome.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOLF related  that  he has  no  problem with  the                                                               
deletion  of page  3 of  Amendment  3 if  that's the  committee's                                                               
wish.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0968                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH asked  if there  is objection  to removing  page                                                               
three  of Amendment  3.   There  being no  objection,  it was  so                                                               
ordered.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved that the committee adopt the                                                                     
following amendment [Amendment 4]:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 9, after "501(c)(3)"                                                                                          
        Insert ", which has yearly gross revenues of at                                                                         
     least $1 million,"                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, [Amendment 4] was adopted.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that there's a motion to adopt                                                                        
Amendment 3 as amended, as follows:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, line 2:                                                                                                         
          Delete "public"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, lines 2-3:                                                                                                      
            Delete "and an annual report of lobbying                                                                            
     expenditure to the Department of Revenue"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, line 8:                                                                                                         
          Delete ", annual report"                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, line 9:                                                                                                         
          Delete "public"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, lines 11-13:                                                                                                    
          Delete "a copy of the newspaper's certificate of                                                                      
     publication  with a  copy of  the notice  published and                                                                    
     the dates  of publication  within seven days  after the                                                                    
     last publication of the notice"                                                                                            
                              and                                                                                               
        Insert "written evidence of satisfaction of this                                                                        
     section."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, line 13:                                                                                                        
     Delete "public"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     At page 1, lines 13-14:                                                                                                    
     Delete "is required to" and "publication"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 1,                                                                                                            
          Delete "$500"                                                                                                         
          Insert "$1,000"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     At page 2, line 4; after "specificity, the"                                                                                
          Insert "lobbying"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 4-6:                                                                                                         
           Delete "proposed, the proposed budget, the                                                                           
        location, and time period in which the lobbying                                                                         
     activity has occurred or will occur;                                                                                       
         (2) of the notice not fewer than two times in                                                                          
     eight days;"                                                                                                               
          Insert "the lobbying activity that has been                                                                           
     published"                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     At page 2, line 6:                                                                                                         
          Delete "(2) of the notice"                                                                                            
          Insert "(i) published"                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     At page 2, lines 6-7:                                                                                                      
          Delete "; (3)"                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     At page 2, lines 17-23:                                                                                                    
          Delete all.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
[HB 149 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 3:22 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 157-ELIMINATE APOC                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH returned the committee's  attention to HOUSE BILL                                                               
NO.  157,   "An  Act  eliminating   the  Alaska   Public  Offices                                                               
Commission; transferring campaign,  public official, and lobbying                                                               
financial  disclosure record-keeping  duties to  the division  of                                                               
elections;   relating  to   reports,  summaries,   and  documents                                                               
regarding  campaign,  public  official,  and  lobbying  financial                                                               
disclosure; providing  for enforcement by the  Department of Law;                                                               
making  conforming statutory  amendments;  and  providing for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  moved  to   adopt  CSHB  157,  Version  23-                                                               
GH1090\H, Craver, 5/7/03,  as the working document.   There still                                                               
being no  objection, Version H  was before the committee.   [This                                                               
motion  was  made  earlier  in   the  meeting  by  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1382                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TAMMY  KEMPTON, Regulation  of  Lobbying,  Alaska Public  Offices                                                               
Commission (APOC),  Department of Administration,  explained that                                                               
the reason  for the amendment being  proposed by APOC is  that in                                                               
Version  H there  were some  changes to  the title.   One  of the                                                               
changes to the  title says, "Allowing a candidate to  make a loan                                                               
to   the  candidate's   own   campaign   without  notifying   the                                                               
commission."  However, APOC still  needs to be notified, although                                                               
the notification provisions have been changed not eliminated.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  surmised, "But that doesn't  change the fact                                                               
that notification we have to make to get our loan paid back."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KEMPTON agreed,  but pointed  out  that the  title makes  it                                                               
sound as if the candidate no longer needs to notify APOC at all.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN related  his understanding  then that  if he                                                               
makes a loan  to his campaign and subject to  the limits he could                                                               
be  repaid  from  his campaign  contributions  later  on  without                                                               
turning in a piece of paper to APOC.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. KEMPTON agreed and specified  that the candidate would notify                                                               
APOC on the candidate's next due report.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1493                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM informed  the committee  that when  he filed                                                               
[for candidacy] he didn't realize he  had to do this.  Therefore,                                                               
when he filed  he put money in to start  his campaign and because                                                               
he  didn't  notify APOC,  the  money  was considered  a  campaign                                                               
contribution and  he couldn't  reimburse himself.   He  said that                                                               
such requirements should be made apparent during filing.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. KEMPTON noted  that the requirement of  notifying APOC within                                                               
five days has been eliminated.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1586                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  moved that  the committee  adopt Amendment                                                               
1, which read:                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 5-6                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
         Delete "allowing a candidate to make a loan to                                                                         
       the candidate's own campaign without notifying the                                                                       
     commission;"                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
         Insert "amendment the notice provision when a                                                                          
         candidate makes a loan to the candidate's own                                                                          
     campaign;"                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1640                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  moved  to  report  CSHB  157,  Version  23-                                                               
GH1090\H,  Craver,  5/7/03, as  amended,  out  of committee  with                                                               
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   objected   for   the   purposes   of                                                               
discussion.  He noted that  [the committee] recently received the                                                               
memorandum dated May  7, 2003, from Barbara  Craver, the drafting                                                               
attorney for HB 157.  He asked if Ms. Craver found any problem.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  related  his  understanding  that  Ms.                                                               
Craver's memorandum says that everything is okay.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  related  his  understanding  that  Ms.                                                               
Craver is making a suggestion to change Section 8.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  requested  Representative  Gruenberg's                                                               
indulgence on  this matter  [indicating the  need to  forward the                                                               
legislation  from   committee]  because   there  are   two  other                                                               
committees of referral in which any concerns could be raised.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG obliged and withdrew his objection.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [indicated that  there were no further objections                                                               
to the  motion to report  Version H, as amended  from committee].                                                               
Therefore,  CSHB  157(STA)  was  reported from  the  House  State                                                               
Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DAVID FINKELSTEIN, Volunteer, Campaign  Finance Reform Now, noted                                                               
his  appreciation to  the committee  for its  previous action  on                                                               
some of the amendments.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1941                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ANDREE  McLEOD provided  the following  testimony.   She recalled                                                               
the beginning of this legislature  when, at a Chamber of Commerce                                                               
meeting, the House  Minority leader expressed his  desire to hold                                                               
the  legislature to  a  higher standard  as  Alaskans expect  and                                                               
demand more from  the legislature.  "And I come  to you with that                                                               
in  mind," she  said.   She highlighted  that the  legislature is                                                               
present to legislate, to appropriate,  and to advocate.  However,                                                               
this legislation allows lobbyists  to contribute to candidates as                                                               
well as  to engage in  campaigns.  Permitting lobbyists  to again                                                               
engage  in  campaign  activities  goes   back  to  the  time  Mr.                                                               
Finkelstein  spoke of  when, prior  to 1996,  lobbyists gave  out                                                               
directly  and indirectly  between $25,000-$100,000  each election                                                               
cycle.   Therefore, there will  be a  large influx of  money from                                                               
special interest [groups],  she predicted.  This will  occur at a                                                               
time when  state resources  are limited.   Ms. McLeod  said, "The                                                               
way you  advocate and whom  you advocate for will  be circumspect                                                               
by   removing  the   prohibition."     She  charged   that  [this                                                               
legislation]  is breaking  down  the integrity  of the  political                                                               
process.    She  expressed  concern  that  once  the  control  of                                                               
disallowing candidates to give money  to candidates outside their                                                               
district  is eliminated,  the control  that keeps  things running                                                               
smoothly is being eliminated.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. McLEOD recalled that this  morning Chair Weyhrauch correlated                                                               
free speech  of HB  230 with  HB 157.   However, she  pointed out                                                               
that free  speech is  only free  speech if no  one is  paying for                                                               
that  speech.   On  one  end  of  the lobbyists,  businesses  and                                                               
special interests  are paying for  that speech and thus  it's not                                                               
free.  When that free  speech is influencing and impacting public                                                               
policy, it's  not free  speech because people  end up  paying for                                                               
the costs  of whatever the  special interest [groups] want.   Ms.                                                               
McLeod pleaded with  the committee to not increase  the number of                                                               
hours for  lobbyist activity from  4 to  16.  She  indicated that                                                               
[passage   of  this   legislation]  means   that  those   in  the                                                               
legislature will  now be influenced by  special interest [groups]                                                               
and   advocate   for   them,  and   therefore   legislation   and                                                               
appropriations for special interest groups will follow.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 2210                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG directed  attention to  page 18,  lines                                                               
23, 27,  and 30, where  there seems to be  a drafting error.   He                                                               
said  the  figures  should  refer  to "$5,000"  per  one  of  the                                                               
amendments the committee adopted.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
[CSHB 157(STA) was reported from the committee.]                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 3:43 p.m. to 3:47 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HB 230-POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH returned the committee's  attention to HOUSE BILL                                                               
NO.  230,  "An  Act  relating   to  political  signs  on  private                                                               
property."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2292                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said  that he was going  to suggest that                                                               
the findings  of HB 230  be placed  in statute AS  19.25.075 like                                                               
the other legislative findings, as was discussed this morning.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  characterized  the   above  as  a  friendly                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
JAMES   CANTOR,   Assistant  Attorney   General,   Transportation                                                               
Section,  Civil Division  (Anchorage),  Department  of Law,  said                                                               
Representative Gruenberg's suggestion makes sense.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  recalled that  AS 19.25.075  was adopted  by the                                                               
people of the state pursuant to a referendum.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. CANTOR replied yes.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH  pointed  out  that AS  19.25.075  is  entitled,                                                               
"Findings  and intent  of the  people  of the  State of  Alaska."                                                               
Therefore, he  asked if  the legislature does  this, would  it be                                                               
different than the people.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that  the [findings of HB 230]                                                               
would  be   a  subsection  (c).     Conceptually,  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg suggested changing the title  of AS 19.25.075 such that                                                               
it would be  entitled, "Findings and intent"  and subsections (a)                                                               
and (b) would remain the  same with subsection (c) and paragraphs                                                               
(1) and (2) under Section 1 of CSHB 230(TRA).                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that this  is partly a policy question [for]                                                               
Representative Holm and a legal question [for] Mr. Cantor.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. CANTOR  said this is a  bit outside his expertise.   However,                                                               
he  recalled that  there  is a  period of  time  after which  the                                                               
legislature can revise referendums.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG clarified  his conceptual  amendment as                                                               
follows.   He explained that the  title of AS 19.25.075  would be                                                               
changed  to read,  "Findings  and intent".    Under AS  19.25.075                                                               
subsections (a)  and (b)  would remain as  is while  a subsection                                                               
(c)  would be  inserted.   Therefore Section  1 of  CSHB 230(TRA)                                                               
would read:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     *Section 1. AS 19.25.075 is amended to read:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     (c) The Alaska State Legislature finds that                                                                                
          (1) the right to advocate for or against those                                                                        
     individuals who  would occupy public office  and issues                                                                    
     of public interest  is an inherent right  that has been                                                                    
     repeatedly affirmed by the courts; and                                                                                     
          (2) the right to advocate for or against those                                                                        
     individuals who  would occupy public office  and issues                                                                    
     of public interest must be  subject to only the minimum                                                                    
     of  restrictions  necessary  to  address  a  compelling                                                                    
     public or government interest.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  WEYHRAUCH announced,  "Without  objection, that  amendment                                                               
has been made conceptually."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2600                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CANTOR  recalled that  this  morning  there was  a  question                                                               
regarding what  happens when the  Department of  Transportation &                                                               
Public  Facilities  (DOT&PF)  has   an  easement  and  a  private                                                               
property  owner   owns  that   land  underneath   that  easement.                                                               
Currently, that  is being litigated  with commercial signs.   Mr.                                                               
Cantor  related  that DOT&PF  would  suggest  that the  committee                                                               
include  language   specifying  that  private   property  doesn't                                                               
include  that portion  of  property subject  to  an easement  for                                                               
public  transportation.     Also,   Mr.  Cantor  said   that  the                                                               
definitions  of "current  relevance" and  "date of  decision" may                                                       
allow commercial speech and thus he suggested the following:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 25, before "matter":                                                                                          
          Insert "noncommercial"                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 25:                                                                                                           
          Delete "or"                                                                                                           
          Insert "and"                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CANTOR  turned   to  the  Nike  case   related  to  indirect                                                               
advertising for commercial products  and noted that the committee                                                               
could  consider  adding  in   language  that  prohibits  indirect                                                               
advertising for  commercial products.   Mr. Cantor moved  to page                                                               
2, line 18, and related  that [the "date of decision" definition]                                                           
leaves DOT&PF  with an  uncomfortable decision  to try  to decide                                                               
when  a public  matter is  terminated.   Therefore, he  suggested                                                               
specifying a  time limit for  temporary signs and  requiring that                                                               
signs be dated when erected.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH  related his  understanding that  political signs                                                               
have to  be taken  down right  after the election  or there  is a                                                               
fine.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CANTOR  said no  and  pointed  out  that such  signs  aren't                                                               
allowed on  private property.   This  legislation may  handle the                                                               
election issue, there are "issues" that this could address.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2779                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  emphasized  that   there  is  a  difference                                                               
between   commercial    speech   and   political    free   speech                                                               
constitutionally.   He  agreed with  Mr.  Cantor that  commercial                                                               
speech has  its place to be  regulated.  However, to  assert that                                                               
political  free  speech  has  a   time  limit  is  inappropriate.                                                               
Representative Holm  inquired as to the  widest right-of-way that                                                               
the state takes of private property in the state.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. CANTOR clarified that many  of the widths were established by                                                               
public  land orders.    He  noted that  he  could  think of  some                                                               
rights-of-way  that  are  300  feet.    In  further  response  to                                                               
Representative Holm, Mr.  Cantor said that the  distance from the                                                               
center line  to the  edge of the  right-of-way would  depend upon                                                               
the type of roadway.  He  recalled that the Old Seward Highway in                                                               
Anchorage  is  150  feet  on  either side  of  the  center  line.                                                               
However, in a number of locations the state holds easements.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, upon determining  that this is the last                                                               
committee of  referral, offered to work  with Representative Holm                                                               
in handling [Mr. Cantor's suggestions].                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 2951                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
TODD  LARKIN,  Staff to  Representative  Jim  Holm, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  expressed  the  need  to  be  ready  for  the  next                                                               
election season.   If this first  step is put on  the books, then                                                               
any problems could be addressed [as they come up].                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 03-59, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 2985                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  indicated that this could  be worked on                                                               
during the interim.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  emphasized that  this [legislation]  is very                                                               
important to  him because  this is a  First Amendment  right that                                                               
has   been  poorly   and   inconsistently   handled  over   time.                                                               
Therefore, he expressed the need  to deal with this matter before                                                               
the next  election season.   He  suspected that  this legislation                                                               
will be worked on in the Senate, which will take some time.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   remarked   that   seldom   has   the                                                               
legislature had legislation dealing with freedom of expression.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN   mentioned  that   perhaps  [Representative                                                               
Gruenberg's idea of dealing with  freedom of expression] could be                                                               
dealt with in another piece of legislation over the interim.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested  that Mr. Cantor's suggestions                                                               
be  reviewed and  asked if  the  legislation could  be held  over                                                               
night.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted he was amenable to the above.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
[HB 230 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
State Affairs  Standing Committee  meeting was adjourned  at 4:07                                                               
p.m.                                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects