Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106

03/30/2006 08:00 AM STATE AFFAIRS


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= HB 45 CONTRIBUTIONS, LOBBYISTS, DISCLOSURE TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 45(STA) Out of Committee
<Bill Hearing Rescheduled from 03/28/06>
+ SB 249 REPORTING BAIL AND RELEASE INFORMATION TELECONFERENCED
Moved Out of Committee
+= HJR 27 ALLOTMENTS FOR NATIVE VIETNAM VETERANS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHJR 27(MLV) Out of Committee
*+ HB 461 LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                           
                         March 30, 2006                                                                                         
                           8:06 a.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair                                                                                           
Representative Jim Elkins                                                                                                       
Representative Bob Lynn                                                                                                         
Representative Jay Ramras                                                                                                       
Representative Berta Gardner                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 45                                                                                                               
"An Act  amending the  definition of the  term 'lobbyist'  in the                                                               
Regulation  of  Lobbying  Act; and  providing  for  an  effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 45(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 249(JUD)                                                                                                 
"An Act relating to criminal justice information."                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED SB 249 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27                                                                                                   
Urging the  United States Congress  to pass  legislation amending                                                               
the  Alaska  Native  Vietnam  Veterans  Allotment  Act  to  allow                                                               
deserving  veterans to  obtain allotments  of vacant  land within                                                               
the  State of  Alaska; and  to reopen  and legislatively  approve                                                               
allotments in the Tongass National Forest.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHJR 27(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 461                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to  disclosure to  the  Alaska Public  Offices                                                               
Commission  of  information  about  certain  income  received  as                                                               
compensation  for   personal  services  by   legislators,  public                                                               
members  of  the  Select Committee  on  Legislative  Ethics,  and                                                               
legislative directors  subject to  the provisions of  law setting                                                               
standards of conduct for legislative branch officers and                                                                        
employees; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB  45                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: CONTRIBUTIONS, LOBBYISTS, DISCLOSURE                                                                               
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WEYHRAUCH                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
01/10/05       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04                                                                              
01/10/05       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/10/05       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
02/23/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/23/06       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/14/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/14/06       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/16/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/16/06       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/16/06       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/21/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/21/06       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/21/06       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/28/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/28/06       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/30/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 249                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: REPORTING BAIL AND RELEASE INFORMATION                                                                             
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
01/23/06       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/23/06       (S)       JUD                                                                                                    
02/15/06       (S)       JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
02/15/06       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/15/06       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/01/06       (S)       JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/01/06       (S)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/02/06       (S)       JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/02/06       (S)       Moved CSSB 249(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/02/06       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
03/03/06       (S)       JUD RPT CS  5DP      SAME TITLE                                                                        
03/03/06       (S)       DP: SEEKINS, FRENCH, GUESS, THERRIAULT,                                                                
                         HUGGINS                                                                                                
03/20/06       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
03/20/06       (S)       VERSION: CSSB 249(JUD)                                                                                 
03/22/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/22/06       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
03/30/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HJR 27                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: ALLOTMENTS FOR NATIVE VIETNAM VETERANS                                                                             
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
01/18/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/18/06       (H)       MLV, STA                                                                                               
03/02/06       (H)       MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
03/02/06       (H)       Moved CSHJR 27(MLV) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/02/06       (H)       MINUTE(MLV)                                                                                            
03/03/06       (H)       MLV RPT CS(MLV) 4DP                                                                                    
03/03/06       (H)       DP: THOMAS, ELKINS, DAHLSTROM, LYNN                                                                    
03/21/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/21/06       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/21/06       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/30/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 461                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES                                                                                            
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARDNER                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
02/13/06       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/13/06       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
03/30/06       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying                                                                                           
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)                                                                                         
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Reviewed lobbying laws and answered                                                                        
questions during the hearing on HB 45.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH                                                                                                           
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented SB 249 as sponsor.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL                                                                                                     
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions as sponsor of HJR 27.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CAROL YEATMAN, Supervising Attorney                                                                                             
Native Allotment                                                                                                                
Alaska Legal Services                                                                                                           
Nome, Alaska                                                                                                                    
POSITION  STATEMENT:   Answered questions  during the  hearing on                                                               
HJR 27.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHARLES HUBBARD                                                                                                                 
Sterling, Alaska                                                                                                                
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified on  behalf of himself  during the                                                               
hearing on HJR 27.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
DEE HUBBARD                                                                                                                     
Sterling, Alaska                                                                                                                
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified on  behalf of herself  during the                                                               
hearing on HJR 27.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  PAUL  SEATON  called  the  House  State  Affairs  Standing                                                             
Committee  meeting  to  order at  8:06:03  AM.    Representatives                                                             
Elkins, Lynn,  Gardner, and  Seaton were present  at the  call to                                                               
order.  Representatives  Gatto and Ramras arrived  as the meeting                                                               
was in progress.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
8:07:00 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HB  45-CONTRIBUTIONS, LOBBYISTS, DISCLOSURE                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:07:07 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON announced  that  the first  order  of business  was                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 45, "An Act  amending the definition of  the term                                                               
'lobbyist' in the  Regulation of Lobbying Act;  and providing for                                                               
an effective date."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
[Before the  committee was CSHB  45, Version  24-LS0312\F, Wayne,                                                               
3/10/06.]                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
8:07:19 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON,  after  ascertaining  that there  was  no  one  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
8:08:22 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 24LS0312\F.2,                                                                  
Wayne, 3/27/06, which read as follows:                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 1:                                                                                                            
          Delete "contribution limits, lobbyists, and                                                                         
     disclosure"                                                                                                              
          Insert "lobbyists and campaign disclosure"                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 4, through page 3, line 10:                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
        "* Section 1. AS 15.13.040(b) is amended to read:                                                                   
          (b)  Except as provided in (l) of this section,                                                                       
     each  group shall  make a  full  report, by  electronic                                                                
     means  upon  a  form   prescribed  by  the  commission,                                                                
     listing                                                                                                                    
               (1)   the  name and  address of  each officer                                                                    
     and director;                                                                                                              
               (2)      the    aggregate   amount   of   all                                                                    
     contributions made to it;                                                                                                  
               (3)  for contributions                                                                                       
               (A)    up  to  and   including  $250  in  the                                                                
     aggregate during  a calendar  year, the  name, address,                                                                
     [DATE,] and amount contributed by each contributor;                                                                    
               (B)   [AND, FOR  CONTRIBUTIONS] in  excess of                                                                
     $250  in  the aggregate  during  a  calendar year,  the                                                                    
     contributor's  name,   address,  principal  occupation,                                                            
     [AND]   employer,  and   amount  contributed   [OF  THE                                                                
     CONTRIBUTOR]; and                                                                                                          
               (4)      the   date   and   amount   of   all                                                                    
     contributions  made by  it and  all expenditures  made,                                                                    
     incurred, or authorized by it.                                                                                             
        * Sec. 2. AS 24.45.171(10) is amended to read:                                                                        
              (10)  "lobbyist" means a person who                                                                               
               (A)  engages in  the business, occupation, or                                                                    
     profession     of     influencing    legislative     or                                                                    
     administrative action; or                                                                                                  
               (B)     receives  wages  or   other  economic                                                                    
     consideration,  including reimbursement  of travel  and                                                                    
     living  expenses,  to  communicate  directly  with  any                                                                    
     public official                                                                                                            
               (i)   for the express purpose  of influencing                                                                    
     legislative or administrative action; and                                                                                  
               (ii)  during  more than 16 [40]  hours in any                                                                
     30-day period in one calendar year;"                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill section accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:08:39 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:08:49 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  said Amendment 1  would do the following:   require                                                               
that financial reports by groups  be by electronic means on forms                                                               
prescribed  by  the  Alaska  Public  Offices  Commission  (APOC);                                                               
change  from 40  to 16  the  hours that  a person  may lobby  the                                                               
legislature in  a 30-day  period before having  to register  as a                                                               
lobbyist  with  APOC;  and   change  the  contribution  reporting                                                               
requirements.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:09:33 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON  moved Amendment  1  to  Amendment 1,  labeled  24-                                                               
LS0312\F.3, Wayne, 3/29/06, which read as follows:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 13 - 19, of Amendment F.2:                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
               "(A)  up to and including $100 in the                                                                        
      aggregate during a calendar year, the name, address,                                                                  
     date, and amount contributed by each contributor;                                                                      
               (B)  in excess of $100 and up to and                                                                         
       including $250 in the aggregate during a calendar                                                                    
      year, the name, address, date, principal occupation,                                                                  
     and amount contributed by each contributor;                                                                            
     (C) [AND, FOR  CONTRIBUTIONS] in excess of  $250 in the                                                                
     aggregate during  a calendar  year, the  name, address,                                                                
     principal  occupation,   [AND]  employer,   and  amount                                                            
     contributed by each [OF THE] contributor; and"                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:09:49 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:10:16 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  spoke to Amendment 1  to Amendment 1.   He reminded                                                               
the   committee   that  HB   45   was   offered  as   legislation                                                               
substantially  similar  to an  initiative  that  will be  on  the                                                               
ballot.    He  said,  "If  we  would  have  approved  HB  45  ...                                                               
throughout  the  entire process,  it  would  have eliminated  the                                                               
initiative   from  the   ballot."      With  the   aforementioned                                                               
amendments, he said, the bill  will not be substantially similar.                                                               
The change  proposed in  Amendment 1, to  change the  time period                                                               
from 40  hours to 16  hours, would  mean that the  lobbyist would                                                               
have two workdays  in which to lobby.   He opined that  that is a                                                               
reasonable amount of  time, whereas 40 hours is not.   He said if                                                               
the initiative  passes, it  would amalgamate  [subparagraphs] (B)                                                               
and  (C) of  Amendment 1  to Amendment  1, but  would not  delete                                                               
[subparagraph] (A).   Therefore,  there would still  be reporting                                                               
of amounts from zero and $100 in the aggregate per year.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:15:53 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON, in response to Representative Gatto, clarified:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     If  this   passes  and   the  initiative   passes,  the                                                                    
     initiative will take  and supersede [subparagraphs] (B)                                                                    
     and  (C), so  that a  group  would have  to report  the                                                                    
     employer and  his occupation for everything  over $100,                                                                    
     but  [subparagraph] (A),  which is  reporting only  the                                                                    
     name, address,  date, and the  amount, would  remain in                                                                    
     play.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:16:22 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what would  be wrong with requiring all                                                               
the information for all the contributions.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:16:43 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON explained that current  law stipulates that a person                                                               
must  report the  information, but  does not  have to  report the                                                               
occupation or employer  until the amount of $150 is  reached.  He                                                               
said  there  is  nothing  in the  amendment  that  would  prevent                                                               
someone from reporting the additional  information by choice, but                                                               
he/she would not be required to do so.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:17:50 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN reiterated his question.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:18:04 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER  suggested that the reason  not to require                                                               
the entire scope  of information in all circumstances  is that at                                                               
some  point the  requirement becomes  too onerous.   She  said it                                                               
would be  impractical to ask  for all that information  for every                                                               
nickel that is contributed.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  asked the committee to  realize that HB 45  and the                                                               
aforementioned initiative address contributions  to groups and do                                                               
not change the information required by candidates.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
8:19:00 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ELKINS asked  if there  has been  abuse regarding                                                               
this   issue,  because   "this  almost   seems  like   additional                                                               
harassment."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:19:27 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON told  Representative Elkins  that currently  groups                                                               
are required to report "all  the information" for every donation.                                                               
He said:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     This will  clarify and make  it easier for  [the Alaska                                                                    
     Public Offices  Commission (APOC)], and yet  there will                                                                    
     still  be  full  reporting,   even  if  the  initiative                                                                    
     passes.   The  initiative  currently is  unclear as  to                                                                    
     whether, since  there's not another  category of  up to                                                                    
     $100, ...  any reporting  would be required  under $100                                                                    
     by group.   And so this makes it clear  that the groups                                                                    
     would still be required to  report the lesser amount of                                                                    
     information, but they would report that information.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS  questioned if the committee  is taking the                                                               
bill in a different direction than the sponsor anticipates.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON said  the bill sponsor has  expressed his acceptance                                                               
of amendments to the bill.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:21:31 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON,  in response  to  a  question from  Representative                                                               
Gatto,  said   the  amendment  affects  those   groups  that  are                                                               
structured to support candidates  and election positions and have                                                               
to  report to  APOC.   Those  organizations  that are  501(3)(c),                                                               
[nonprofit], do not report to APOC.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
8:22:07 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN  removed his  objection  to  Amendment 1  to                                                               
Amendment 1.   There being  no further objection, Amendment  1 to                                                               
Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:22:47 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER,  regarding the time spent  as a lobbyist,                                                               
said 16 hours of lobbying really  equals more than two days.  She                                                               
explained that  that time is not  the time spent in  Juneau or in                                                               
the capitol building, but it is  the amount of time spent face to                                                               
face with legislators.   Therefore, 16 hours could  be spread out                                                               
over four or five days.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:23:17 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON said the 16  hours would allow people who frequently                                                               
come to  Juneau for two  days to  not be concerned  about keeping                                                               
track of  their lobbying time.   He reiterated  his understanding                                                               
that  testifying   before  a  committee  doesn't   count  towards                                                               
lobbying time.  He invited  a representative from APOC to testify                                                               
and confirm his understanding or correct it.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:24:21 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TAMMY  KEMPTON, Regulation  of  Lobbying,  Alaska Public  Offices                                                               
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, stated:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     With  all  due  respect   [Chair]  Seaton,  time  spent                                                                    
     testifying  does count  towards  the 16  hours, the  40                                                                    
     hours, or  whatever it is.   That's one of  the biggest                                                                    
     misunderstandings in the lobbying law.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KEMPTON referenced  [AS 24.45.161(a)(1)(A)  and (B)],  which                                                               
read:                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          (a) This chapter does not apply to                                                                                    
          (1) an individual                                                                                                     
          (A) who lobbies without payment of compensation                                                                       
     or  other consideration  and makes  no disbursement  or                                                                    
     expenditure for  or on behalf  of a public  official to                                                                    
     influence  legislative or  administrative action  other                                                                    
     than  to  pay   the  individual's  reasonable  personal                                                                    
     travel and living expenses; and                                                                                            
          (B) who limits lobbying activities to appearances                                                                     
     before  public  sessions  of the  legislature,  or  its                                                                    
     committees or  subcommittees, or to public  hearings or                                                                    
     other public proceedings of state agencies;                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KEMPTON  emphasized  that the  word  "and"  appears  between                                                               
subparagraphs (A)  and (B).   She added that telephone  time also                                                               
counts towards lobbying time.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON thanked Ms. Kempton for the clarification.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:26:36 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. KEMPTON, in response to  a question from Representative Lynn,                                                               
explained  that  if  a  person   is  only  being  reimbursed  for                                                               
expenses, is not  receiving a salary, and is not  an employee for                                                               
the organization  for which  he/she is  lobbying, then  he/she is                                                               
called  a  representational  lobbyist and  must  register  before                                                               
beginning to lobby.  The  representational lobbyist does not have                                                               
to pay the $250 registration, file  reports, or be subject to the                                                               
other prohibitions  in terms of prohibitions  and fundraising for                                                               
legislative  campaigns.   She said  the organization  reimbursing                                                               
the expenses of  the representational lobbyist has  to report the                                                               
reimbursements.    In  response  to  a  follow-up  question  from                                                               
Representative  Lynn, she  said  a lobbyist  who  was only  being                                                               
reimbursed  for  his/her  airfare  would still  be  considered  a                                                               
representational lobbyist.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:28:19 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON asked where the lobbying law comes in to play.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:28:32 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. KEMPTON  said basically what  APOC does is follow  the money;                                                               
therefore, if there is no  money changing hands, there is nothing                                                               
for  APOC  to  follow  and  there  is  nothing  to  be  reported.                                                               
Lobbyists don't report with whom  they meet; they report how much                                                               
they are paid to meet with people and how much they spend.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:29:25 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KEMPTON,  in  response to  a  question  from  Representative                                                               
Gatto,  said she  herself  is representing  a  state office  and,                                                               
thus, is  not acting as  a lobbyist.   She cited AS  24.45.161 as                                                               
being  an exemption  for state  officials and  employees who  are                                                               
acting  in the  course of  their duties.   The  same applies  for                                                               
municipal employees and officials.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
8:30:25 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about the oil companies.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. KEMPTON responded,  "The oil companies are  probably the best                                                               
we have  at registering  and reporting; they  are almost  never a                                                               
problem.  And if there should  happen to be a mistake and they've                                                               
done something wrong, they immediately correct it."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
8:30:59 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  asked if  lobbyist  are  allowed to  round                                                               
numbers or must report time precisely.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:31:08 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KEMPTON replied  that the  reporting  is done  on the  honor                                                               
system.  She  said she tells people if there  is ever a complaint                                                               
filed she will  ask for some sort of accounting;  however, if the                                                               
person  doesn't  keep accounting,  then  APOC  will have  to  ask                                                               
everyone with  whom the  lobbyist met to  verify the  meeting and                                                               
time involved.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:31:51 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding  that the hour requirement                                                               
had been  4 hours and  was changed to 40.   He asked  Ms. Kempton                                                               
if, at the  time of that change,  there were a lot  of people who                                                               
no longer registered.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:32:18 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. KEMPTON answered  that APOC did see a significant  drop.  The                                                               
year the  number changed  to 40 hours  there were  213 registered                                                               
lobbyists.   Before the oil companies  started registering, there                                                               
were approximately 120 registered, and there are about 130 now.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
8:32:45 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  asked if the  proposed change  from 40 to  16 would                                                               
result in requiring most of  those lobbying currently to register                                                               
with APOC.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:33:05 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KEMPTON answered  yes.   The  drop was  not in  professional                                                               
lobbyists  with multiple  clients, but  with part-time  lobbyists                                                               
and attorneys.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
8:34:12 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN removed  his objection  to Amendment  1, [as                                                               
amended].   There  being no  further objection,  Amendment 1,  as                                                               
amended, was adopted.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:34:48 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report  HB 45, as amended, out of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal notes.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  said he  has no  objection, but  stated that                                                               
about three years ago he  had objected strongly regarding raising                                                               
[individual]  contributions to  candidates from  $500 to  $1,000,                                                               
because  he  thought it  put  a  chilling  effect on  the  entire                                                               
process.   He  talked about  the advantage  that incumbents  have                                                               
over other candidates.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:36:30 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON,  in response  to a  remark by  Representative Lynn,                                                               
clarified that HB  45, [as amended], would not change  any of the                                                               
[individual]  contribution amounts  to which  Representative Lynn                                                               
had referred.   He added, "But if an initiative  later passes, it                                                               
would have  [the effect of  lowering the  individual contribution                                                               
amounts.]"                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO observed  that  Representative Gardner  had                                                               
made  the motion  to  move  the original  bill  out of  committee                                                               
rather than Version F.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:37:52 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER withdrew  her motion to move HB  45 out of                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:38:04 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER  moved to  report  CSHB  45, Version  24-                                                               
LS0312\F,  Wayne,  3/10/06, as  amended,  out  of committee  with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the  accompanying fiscal  notes.                                                               
There being  no objection, CSHB  45(STA) was reported out  of the                                                               
House State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SB 249-REPORTING BAIL AND RELEASE INFORMATION                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
8:38:50 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was CS                                                                   
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 249(JUD), "An Act relating to criminal                                                                      
justice information."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:38:51 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB                                                                   
249 as sponsor.  He related a story to illustrate why the                                                                       
proposed legislation is necessary as follows:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     About a  year ago,  on the Summer  Solstice, in  my ...                                                                    
     neighborhood, there  was a SWAT  team shut down  of the                                                                    
     neighborhood  due to  a domestic  violence disturbance.                                                                    
     A former  boyfriend of a  woman that lived  just around                                                                    
     the corner  from my  house had  returned to  that home,                                                                    
     had pulled  a gun  on her, [and]  threatened her.   She                                                                    
     called  the police,  and when  the  police arrived,  he                                                                    
     fired a  shot at the police.   That of course  caused a                                                                    
     major  response from  the Anchorage  police department.                                                                    
     Neighbors  were hustled  out of  their homes  [and] the                                                                    
     street   was  cordoned   off.     Eight  hours   later,                                                                    
     thankfully,  the  system  was  defused  without  anyone                                                                    
     having  been  hurt, thanks  to  the  good work  of  the                                                                    
     Anchorage Police Department.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     ... That person had  been, of course, arrested, charged                                                                    
     with  a crime,  put in  jail,  and he'd  bailed out  of                                                                    
     jail.   Two weeks later he  shows up at the  same house                                                                    
     again,  and a  neighbor sees  him there  and knows  the                                                                    
     system well enough to know  for a certainty that he was                                                                    
     not allowed  to be back  at that location; he  had been                                                                    
     warned  to stay  away from  there  by the  judge.   She                                                                    
     called  the police,  a patrol  officer  showed up,  and                                                                    
     when she told her story  to the patrol officer, he went                                                                    
     back to  his car,  checked the  computer, and  came out                                                                    
     and said,  "There's nothing I  can do;  there's nothing                                                                    
     in the computer that tells  me that he's not allowed to                                                                    
     be there."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Well that,  of course, caused her  great consternation.                                                                    
     She  called several  people, including  myself, and  we                                                                    
     were  able  to  get   the  situation  straightened  out                                                                    
     safely.    But  it   really  highlighted  the  lack  of                                                                    
     communication, if  you will,  between the  court system                                                                    
     and  patrol officers.   And  that's the  impetus behind                                                                    
     this fairly short and fairly simple bill.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH said the idea is  to provide a place in the Alaska                                                               
Public  Safety   Information  Network  (APSIN)  to   record  bail                                                               
information.    He  explained that  bail  information  frequently                                                               
prohibits  individuals  from  doing  things  that  are  otherwise                                                               
lawful.  He  said, "It can prohibit you from  driving a car, from                                                               
going  to  a certain  place  in  a part  of  town,  or even  from                                                               
consuming alcohol in no matter how  small amounts.  And those are                                                               
things that  police can't detect  as being unlawful,  unless they                                                               
know what the conditions of bail are."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH  credited  the   chair  of  the  House  Judiciary                                                               
Standing  Committee for  pointing out  that conditions  of parole                                                               
were not  included.   He said  the bill  comes with  three fiscal                                                               
notes.    He said,  "It  doesn't  command that  this  information                                                               
suddenly  be  added,   it  just  puts  a  place   in  the  absent                                                               
architecture  for the  addition of  that information,  and future                                                               
efforts will  be necessary  to complete the  link ...  to provide                                                               
enough horse power to make that a reality."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
8:41:49 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked  what effect the bill  would have on                                                               
the street if it were to pass right now unchanged.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
8:42:09 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR FRENCH  answered that the  changes would not  be apparent                                                               
over night;  however, he  said there  are groups  at work  on the                                                               
issue,  including  "the  magic  group"  in  Anchorage,  which  is                                                               
comprised  of   people  from  the  Alaska   State  Troopers,  the                                                               
Department of  Law, and the court  system, including [information                                                               
technology  (IT)] people  from each.   He  noted that  [the magic                                                               
group]  is trying  to find  a way  to "put  this information  out                                                               
...."                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
8:42:43 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  said he wants  to clarify  that this bill  does not                                                               
mandate  that  "this  immediately  be done,"  but  would  provide                                                               
statutory framework.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR HOLLIS  responded, "It's more permissive  than mandatory,                                                               
yes ...."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said SB 249 seems like common sense.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  FRENCH, in  response to  a question  from Representative                                                               
Gardner, stated that there has been no opposition to SB 249.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
8:43:52 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON,  after ascertaining that  there was no one  else to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
8:44:33 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER  moved to  report  CSSB  249(JUD) out  of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal  notes.   There  being  no  objection, CSSB  249(JUD)  was                                                               
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 8:45:33 AM to 8:47:27 AM.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HJR 27-ALLOTMENTS FOR NATIVE VIETNAM VETERANS                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
8:47:40 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON announced that the  next order of business was HOUSE                                                               
JOINT RESOLUTION  NO. 27,  Urging the  United States  Congress to                                                               
pass  legislation amending  the  Alaska  Native Vietnam  Veterans                                                               
Allotment Act  to allow deserving  veterans to  obtain allotments                                                               
of vacant  land within  the State  of Alaska;  and to  reopen and                                                               
legislatively approve allotments in the Tongass National Forest.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  highlighted several  handouts new to  the committee                                                               
packet.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
8:49:34 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOHN   COGHILL,  Alaska  State   Legislature,  as                                                               
sponsor of HJR  27, referred to questions that were  asked at the                                                               
previous  hearing  and  directed attention  to  information  from                                                               
Alaska Legal  Services, which shows  how [S. 2000 and  H.R. 1811]                                                               
would  amend   the  existing   Alaska  Native   Vietnam  Veterans                                                               
Allotment  Act.   Regarding the  issue  of whether  or not  heirs                                                               
would  be  allowed the  allotment,  he  noted where  the  handout                                                               
explains that  currently only those  heirs of a veteran  who died                                                               
in the  Vietnam war or  from war injuries would  qualify, whereas                                                               
the  amendments  proposed  by the  aforementioned  U.S.  Congress                                                               
bills  would  allow an  heir  of  any  now deceased  Vietnam  Era                                                               
veteran to apply for an allotment.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL said  probably  the biggest  issue is  in                                                               
regard  to vacant  federal  lands.   He noted  that  there is  an                                                               
amendment in the  committee packet that would  target that issue.                                                               
He stated:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     This resolution,  which would encourage the  passage of                                                                    
     H.R.  1811 and  S.  2000, still  does  not address  the                                                                    
     issue of  the Tongass Forest  ....  We are  asking them                                                                    
     to look at the [Shields  v. United States, 698 F.2d 987                                                                  
     (9  Cir., 1983)]  decision, but  those two  cases would                                                                  
     not deal with it.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL explained  that  vacant  lands are  those                                                               
that do not  have any prior use; land with  pipelines, gas lines,                                                               
roads,  bridges,  slips,  or  other  improvements  would  not  be                                                               
considered.  He  referred to a related portion  of the previously                                                               
mentioned handout,  which read:  "Thus,  veteran allotments would                                                               
be  allowed  in  all  national  forests  and  national  parks  in                                                               
Alaska."  He said he personally  thinks "that's just fine that we                                                               
have  'inholdings'  in  some  of our  parks  and  preserves,  and                                                               
national forests."  He pointed  out that many of those allotments                                                               
were set out  before many parks were in  existence.  Furthermore,                                                               
he said, the Act  went through at the same time  that some of the                                                               
parks were  being formed,  and "there  was an  understanding that                                                               
they would be able to select out of those parks."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that  Ms. Yeatman could speak to                                                               
the issue  of the application process.   He said, "Because  in my                                                               
view I  think that's  a very steep  ... deal.   I don't  think it                                                               
would be an  easy thing for any  of the possible 1,200  - I think                                                               
is what it amounts to - applications."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
8:53:47 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  stated that the original  allotment required either                                                               
usage  or  occupancy  of  those  lands;  therefore,  there  is  a                                                               
significant  difference  between  that   which  would  have  been                                                               
occupancy in  an area that was  designated as [a] park,  and this                                                               
[resolution], which  says that  you can  select land  that you've                                                               
had no historical tie to at all.  He continued:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     And so, it seems to me  that when we're talking about a                                                                    
     national   park,  there's   a  significant   difference                                                                    
     between the previous allotment bill  that said, ... "If                                                                    
     you've got this  historic tie at usage  or occupancy of                                                                    
     that land and  this bill that's in there  now that says                                                                    
     any park  is fair game  - or refuge.   And I  don't see                                                                    
     the monuments  addressed in here,  so, I'd like  to get                                                                    
     it clarified.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
8:54:44 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded as follows:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     I agree  that is  part of the  issue, but  the tradeoff                                                                    
     for me ... is:   there were a lot of  lands that had no                                                                    
     improvements  or limitations  because of  pipelines, et                                                                    
     cetera - the various  different changes that really cut                                                                    
     ribbons  through  much  of  the   land  that  would  be                                                                    
     available.     And  again,  they   would  have   to  be                                                                    
     legislatively  approved, so  they still  have a  pretty                                                                    
     high bar to  get over in my view.   But the tradeoff is                                                                    
     just that.   Whereas before it had to be  land that was                                                                    
     traditional use.   But in many cases  there [have] been                                                                    
     buildings,  campsites, bridges,  I  mean  all kinds  of                                                                    
     things that  have happened over  the last  century that                                                                    
     have really  made that distinction very  hard to follow                                                                    
     through.   The fact  that there [were]  probably 40,000                                                                    
     allotments  possible and  now  we're down  to the  last                                                                    
     1,200  possible, I  don't think  that  the tradeoff  is                                                                    
     that big  of a deal.   So, to me  the policy call  is I                                                                    
     would let them go ahead and make the selection.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:56:16 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON asked  Ms.  Yeatman  if those  who  applied for  an                                                               
allotment but did not receive one could apply again.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:56:59 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CAROL  YEATMAN, Supervising  attorney,  Native Allotment,  Alaska                                                               
Legal  Services,  answered  yes.   In  response  to  a  follow-up                                                               
question from  Chair Seaton,  she estimated  that there  would be                                                               
1,200 allotments  available.   Regarding whether  national parks,                                                               
refuges,  and forests  are considered  vacant  federal land,  she                                                               
began by  saying that  the original  Act of 1906  had no  use and                                                               
occupancy   requirement.     If  people   had  known   about  the                                                               
opportunity, they could  have picked land anywhere  in the state,                                                               
with the only restriction against  picking mineral land.  The law                                                               
was changed in 1956, she said,  and that's when use and occupancy                                                               
requirements were  put in  place.   According to  the legislative                                                               
history for  that change,  Ms. Yeatman  said, the  forest service                                                               
did not  want Native  allotments within  national forests.   When                                                               
U.S. Congress found  out what that meant in terms  of the cost in                                                               
time  to adjudicate  an allotment,  it  tried to  change the  law                                                               
again  under  Alaska  National Interest  Lands  Conservation  Act                                                               
(ANILCA)  and  gave  legislative  approval to  the  then  pending                                                               
allotments.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. YEATMAN continued:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     For  the  amendments,  having legislative  approval  is                                                                    
     just  giving  the  veterans the  same  opportunity  the                                                                    
     people have  under the  current general  allotment Act,                                                                    
     which  is  legislative  approval.     The  land  that's                                                                    
     available  under the  amendment is  any vacant  federal                                                                    
     land,  and  that  means  -   similar  to  the  original                                                                    
     Allotment Act - that any  federal land that has nothing                                                                    
     on it is available for veterans' allotment.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     And one of the problems  that we've seen in the current                                                                    
     law  [is] that  most  applications  that were  rejected                                                                    
     were rejected on the grounds  that the land applied for                                                                    
     was   not  available   because  there   were  so   many                                                                    
     restrictions  in  the  Veterans  Allotment  Act  as  it                                                                    
     stands now.  But  under the amendments, national parks,                                                                    
     national  forests, [and]  national monuments  would all                                                                    
     be available  for veteran allotments, as  long as there                                                                    
     was  no interest  such as  a right  of way  easement or                                                                    
     gravel  pit, pipeline,  improvement, and  so forth,  or                                                                    
     anything that would make it not vacant.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
9:00:44 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 2 of the Alaska Legal                                                                   
Services Corporation's handout, and the second bulleted point,                                                                  
which read:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Veteran  allotments  will  be  allowed  on  all  vacant                                                                    
     federal land.   This means  that all federal  land will                                                                    
     be available  for veteran allotments  as long as  it is                                                                    
     vacant.   Vacant  federal  land  is without  buildings,                                                                    
     roads,  bridges,   existing  and   proposed  pipelines,                                                                    
     existing  and  proposed rights-of-ways  and  easements,                                                                    
     designated campsites,  boat launches, logging  areas or                                                                    
     any  improvements or  proposed improvements  that would                                                                    
     exclude land as  not being vacant.   In contrast, under                                                                    
     existing  law  most  federal   land  is  not  available                                                                    
     because  it  is  specifically  excluded  [all  national                                                                    
     forest  land is  excluded] or  it was  withdrawn before                                                                    
     the veteran used it.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON asked what the  limitation on a proposed easement or                                                               
improvement means.   He  asked, "What makes  it either  vacant or                                                               
not vacant?"                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
9:01:28 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. YEATMAN  replied that what makes  it vacant is if  there is a                                                               
little marker showing  that the land is going to  be taken - that                                                               
it  has been  selected for  a specific  purpose -  "anything that                                                               
would ... take  an area off the  market, so to speak."   She said                                                               
additionally  there are  umbrella  federal laws  that would  also                                                               
apply.  For example, every  allotment today has a reservation for                                                               
ditches, canals,  "and so forth," and  if the allotment is  in an                                                               
area known to be an oil and  gas area, then that also is reserved                                                               
from the allotment.  She  explained that that means the allotment                                                               
is certified,  or there  is a  patent for  it, but  the allotment                                                               
owner  does not  get  subsurface  rights to  oil  and  gas.   She                                                               
indicated that there are also other restrictions.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
9:02:53 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON noted  that  the  legislation specifically  exempts                                                               
from selection any Trans-Alaska  Pipeline System (TAPS) right-of-                                                               
way  area,  but  does  not  exempt  a  natural  gasoline/pipeline                                                               
corridor.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:03:45 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. YEATMAN explained:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     The  reason  the  extension   is  specifically  in  the                                                                    
     amendment, or ...  [H.R.] 1811 and S.  2000, is because                                                                    
     that was a concession  to [the Alyeska Pipeline Service                                                                    
     Company  (ALYESKA)].    ALYESKA reviewed  the  proposed                                                                    
     legislation  to  amend  the  [Alaska  Native]  Veterans                                                                    
     Allotment Act  [of 1906] and  they ...  understood that                                                                    
     "vacant" meant land that wasn't  the pipeline, but they                                                                    
     were  so concerned  about that  that they  asked us  to                                                                    
     concede  and just  put and  express  exemption for  the                                                                    
     pipeline.   So, that's why  that's in there.   It's not                                                                    
     that anybody  thinks that the pipeline  would be vacant                                                                    
     land;  it's  just  that   to  satisfy  Alyeska's  great                                                                    
     concern,  we  added that  provision.    But ...  vacant                                                                    
     means  vacant, and  I don't  even think  that's a  word                                                                    
     that  lawyers would  fight over  very often.   I  think                                                                    
     that  if  there's  a proposed  pipeline  route,  or  if                                                                    
     there's anything on the books,  then that would take it                                                                    
     out of being vacant.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:04:53 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON stated his concern:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     We have,  of course, a  natural gas pipeline.   ALYESKA                                                                    
     is  concerned about  their  corridor  enough that  they                                                                    
     wanted to  get specific exclusion  under the law.   And                                                                    
     we  don't have  that specific  exclusion for  the [gas]                                                                    
     pipeline corridor.  And if  we had a multitude, or even                                                                    
     a number,  of private  inholdings that could  delay the                                                                    
     construction  of   a  pipeline,  then  that   would  be                                                                    
     something very  significant to  our state.   And  so, I                                                                    
     want to  make sure  that what we're  proposing -  and I                                                                    
     understand this  is only a  resolution - but we  are --                                                                    
     this  is  the  State   of  Alaska  asking  the  federal                                                                    
     government to  do something,  and I  want to  make sure                                                                    
     that we ask  them for what we really want  and not what                                                                    
     we don't  want.  And  so, do  we have court  cases that                                                                    
     delineate ...  when a proposed,  or a thought of,  or a                                                                    
     potential pipeline corridor becomes vacant?                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
9:06:37 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. YEATMAN  answered no.   She said  Chair Seaton  is expressing                                                               
the same  serious concerns that  ALYESKA expressed  several years                                                               
ago  "when we  added that  provision to  specifically exempt  the                                                               
pipeline."    She suggested  that  the  Alaska State  Legislature                                                               
should ask  U.S. Congress to  add a provision that  would satisfy                                                               
its concern.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
9:08:02 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON stated a concern regarding trustees of state.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:10:26 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  YEATMAN  responded  that   fortunately  for  Chair  Seaton's                                                               
concern,  allotment law  doesn't work  quite the  same as  "other                                                               
properties and  trustees, and so  forth."  There are  no trustees                                                               
for an "allotment estate."  Ms. Yeatman explained as follows:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     A  personal  representative  is appointed  by  a  state                                                                    
     court;  that's in  federal  regulation.   The  personal                                                                    
     representative has one  duty, and that duty  is to make                                                                    
     out the application  - period.  And that  person has no                                                                    
     fiduciary duty  as a trustee  would under  normal state                                                                    
     law.  That's because it's  the Bureau of Indian Affairs                                                                    
     that's  the  trustee  for  a   person's  estate  and  a                                                                    
     person's property.   And  that trusteeship  ... doesn't                                                                    
     really kick in  until the allotment is  certified.  So,                                                                    
     while a person is  making application for an allotment,                                                                    
     whether   that   person   is  an   heir   or   personal                                                                    
     representative, or  both, there is no  trustee ... [or]                                                                    
     fiduciary duty;  there's only  the authority  under the                                                                    
     law  to make  an application.    So, we  don't have  to                                                                    
     worry about  a trustee picking  a piece of  property to                                                                    
     maximize  the  state, because  that  is  not what  that                                                                    
     personal  representative's duty  or authority  is; it's                                                                    
     only  to  make  application  for  an  allotment.    And                                                                    
     generally    speaking,    in   the    past,    personal                                                                    
     representatives have been  an heir - either  a child of                                                                    
     a deceased  veteran or  a parent  - and  they generally                                                                    
     picked  the land  that they  used for  subsistence that                                                                    
     was near their village - just like everybody else did.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
9:13:15 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON said  he is  relieved  to hear  that, because  that                                                               
alleviates  that concern.   He  mentioned  an upcoming  amendment                                                               
that would address the previously discussed pipeline.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
9:13:58 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHARLES  HUBBARD, testifying  on behalf  of himself,  referred to                                                               
his  written testimony  [included  in the  committee packet]  and                                                               
said it obviously is  not "the whole story."  He  said the end of                                                               
both H.R. 1811 and S. 2000  state that the Department of Interior                                                               
will have one  year to establish regulations.   He indicated that                                                               
the  final  rule  published  in  43 CFR  25.60,  June  30,  2000,                                                               
involved  a  public  testimony  process.   He  said  one  of  the                                                               
questions that  came up was  whether there  is land owned  by the                                                               
federal  government that  [the Bureau  of Land  Management (BLM)]                                                               
cannot convey to someone who qualifies.  He continued:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Part of their  answer is:  Land  presently selected but                                                                    
     not  conveyed to  the  State of  Alaska  the state  may                                                                    
     relinquish - up to 160.   And obviously that would be a                                                                    
     process that would  have to go through the  state.  So,                                                                    
     the concerns  of people selecting lands  that the state                                                                    
     has selected would be addressed  if they would do that,                                                                    
     and it would be addressed with the state.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     And  it  also  says  you cannot  receive  an  allotment                                                                    
     containing  any of  the following:   a  regularly used,                                                                    
     recognized campsite  that is primarily used  by someone                                                                    
     other  than yourself.   In  other words,  public parks.                                                                    
     ... Most parks have campsites  and other things in them                                                                    
     that other people use.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     These are  the regulations that  came out under  43 CFR                                                                    
     25.60.   In the  original [Veterans] Allotment  Act, it                                                                    
     also  addresses the  fact that  the allotment  only had                                                                    
     surface  rights -  not subsurface  rights, and  it also                                                                    
     addresses pipeline,  railroads, and other right  of way                                                                    
     that  they  cannot  restrict  any   of  those  type  of                                                                    
     activity - the allotments cannot.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
9:17:46 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DEE HUBBARD, testifying on behalf of herself, mentioned her e-                                                                  
mailed testimony [included in the committee packet].  She                                                                       
stated:                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     When  I last  checked with  anyone in  Washington D.C.,                                                                    
     the report  that the [U.S.] Department  of Interior was                                                                    
     supposed to have completed and  sent to [U.S.] Congress                                                                    
     in 1999  cannot be  found.  I  was told  sometimes this                                                                    
     happens when a  department really doesn't want  to do a                                                                    
     report.   So, the possibility  of finding out  how many                                                                    
     Alaska  Natives  might  be  affected  by  this  is  not                                                                    
     available.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     The other  item is in talking  with [Cynthia] Ahwinona,                                                                    
     from  Representative  [Don]   Young's  office,  she  is                                                                    
     really  hopeful that  this resolution  will get  moving                                                                    
     and get  passed, because she  said she really  needs it                                                                    
     back  in  D.C.  to  help  with  Representative  Young's                                                                    
     legislation.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
9:19:47 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to                                                                  
testify, closed public testimony.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
9:19:53 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL, regarding  an  issue brought  up by  Ms.                                                               
Hubbard [in her written  testimony] regarding conservation system                                                               
units, said Ms. Hubbard asserted  that if there was land selected                                                               
within  a conservation  system unit  that BLM  would "go  to find                                                               
land  outside   of  that  system."     He  said  he   would  like                                                               
clarification on this issue from Ms. Yeatman.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
9:20:28 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  read from Ms.  Hubbard's testimony for  the benefit                                                               
of Ms.  Yeatman, who  was testifying  via teleconference  and did                                                               
not have a copy.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
9:21:22 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  YEATMAN  said  the  conservation system  unit  (CSU)  is  in                                                               
existing law.   She revealed that  she was recently told  by "two                                                               
fairly high BLM  officials" that they "wished they  had never put                                                               
that in the regulations."  She continued:                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     It's  in  the federal  regulations  that  apply to  the                                                                    
     veteran allotments  today; it's  not in  the amendment.                                                                    
     ... Ms. Hubbard  is right, in that the  definition of a                                                                    
     conservation  system  unit  is very  broad;  it  covers                                                                    
     almost all federal land.   And it gives the CSU manager                                                                    
     - that is the manager  of that particular area, whether                                                                    
     it's  a wildlife  refuge or  a park  or whatever  - ...                                                                    
     veto power  over a  veteran allotment.   And  I'll give                                                                    
     you a good  example.  I have a client  that applied for                                                                    
     a veteran's allotment in a  national park - St. Elias -                                                                    
     and  he applied  for the  allotment of  land that  he's                                                                    
     used for  many, many years.   ... It's along  the road,                                                                    
     there's an  old mine, there's two  airstrips, there's a                                                                    
     grocery  store,  there  are two  lodges,  there  are  a                                                                    
     number   of   homestead   cabins,  and   so   forth   -                                                                    
     recreational areas.   It's a very  well developed area,                                                                    
     and  it's not  far off  the highway.   The  CSU manager                                                                    
     rejected  his  allotment on  the  grounds  that it  was                                                                    
     inconsistent with the purpose  of the park, although it                                                                    
     was in an area that's highly developed.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     So,  the provision  for CSU  in the  federal law  today                                                                    
     allows the CSU  manager - the park manager  or a fairly                                                                    
     low-level employee - to reject  an allotment.  And when                                                                    
     that happens,  the veteran then  has to go and  pick an                                                                    
     alternative sight.   But as  we've seen over  and over,                                                                    
     one  of the  big problems  with the  Veterans Allotment                                                                    
     Act is there  isn't any land available  as it's defined                                                                    
     under  current  law.    And so,  if  veterans  are  not                                                                    
     allowed  to get  allotments in  a national  park, or  a                                                                    
     wildlife  refuge,  or  a national  forest,  then  we're                                                                    
     right back where  we started from, and  there isn't any                                                                    
     land left  for them.  They're  going to be left  out of                                                                    
     getting any land whatsoever,  because that's all that's                                                                    
     left.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:24:02 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON  asked  if  the provision  that  [Ms.  Hubbard]  is                                                               
talking about would be superseded by S. 2000 or H.R. 1811.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:24:20 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  YEATMAN  answered  that's correct;  [the  provision]  is  in                                                               
current law,  not in  the proposed  amendments in  U.S. Congress.                                                               
Regarding Ms.  Hubbard's remark that  she was unable to  obtain a                                                               
copy of  a report to  U.S. Congress  that the U.S.  Department of                                                               
Interior  was  supposed to  have  made,  Ms. Yeatman  stated  her                                                               
understanding   that   Representative   Coghill   provided   that                                                               
information to the committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
9:25:08 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON said he would  ask Representative Coghill to forward                                                               
that information to Ms. Hubbard.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
9:25:52 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON moved  to adopt Amendment 1, [found  on two separate                                                               
pages], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 27:                                                                                                 
          Add a new clause to read:                                                                                             
          "FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress                                                                   
     is urged to  prohibit the selection of  allotments in a                                                                    
     national park,  a national wildlife refuge,  a national                                                                    
     monument,  or the  right-of-way for  a proposed  Alaska                                                                    
     natural gas pipeline; and be it"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Insert at page 2 line 25                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     WHEREAS,  the policy  of the  United States  of America                                                                    
     over the past  several decades has been  to acquire in-                                                                    
      holdings in our National Park, Refuge, and Monument                                                                       
     systems to provide a contiguous manageable entity; and                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     WHEREAS,  acquisition by  numerous  private parties  of                                                                    
     parcels  that will  be necessary  for the  right-of-way                                                                    
     and construction of the Alaska  North Slope Natural Gas                                                                    
     Pipeline  could complicate  and delay  the construction                                                                    
     of such a vital facility,                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
9:27:01 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS objected for discussion purposes.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
9:27:11 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said  he disagrees with a  majority of the                                                               
amendment,  with the  exception of  the language  related to  the                                                               
right-of-way of  a proposed natural  gas pipeline.   Closing down                                                               
national   parks,  refuges,   and  monuments,   he  said,   would                                                               
effectively  "slam the  door on  other  selections," because  the                                                               
land available  then would be "minimal  to nothing."  He  said he                                                               
doesn't have all the answers, but  he said, "Even if the language                                                               
in Congress  passes through,  I can tell  you the  CSU management                                                               
would be a huge barrier anyway."   He said he thinks the level of                                                               
scrutiny the  allotments will get  will be huge,  because several                                                               
federal agencies will have to review them.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:29:11 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON clarified that Amendment  1 includes national parks,                                                               
refuges, and  monument systems, but  does not include any  of the                                                               
national forests, which are the  largest portions of federal land                                                               
in Alaska.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:29:20 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  said that  would be helpful  in Southeast                                                               
and  Southcentral  Alaska,  but  not for  the  vast  majority  of                                                               
Alaska.  He  explained that Amendment 1 would  make everything on                                                               
a river system  in the interior or the northern  region of Alaska                                                               
off limits.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
9:29:47 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON said  Amendment 1  would take  out Arctic  National                                                               
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)  and Denali National Park.   He asked what                                                               
else would be affected.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
9:30:04 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL listed:    Gates of  the Arctic,  Selawik                                                               
Refuge, and  Porcupine River Refuge.   He  said he would  have to                                                               
bring in a  map to point out other areas.   Notwithstanding that,                                                               
he stated other  areas that would be affected would  be:  most of                                                               
Western  Alaska,  all  of  North Alaska,  and  most  of  Interior                                                               
Alaska.  He  concluded, "I think almost all federal  land - maybe                                                               
with a few  exceptions - [is] going to be  within the description                                                               
of 'parks, refuges, or monuments.'"                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
9:30:44 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  asked if  taking refuges out  of Amendment  1 would                                                               
"provide enough ... delineation."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
9:31:03 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  replied, "There  are some parks  that are                                                               
probably more sensitive than others.   I think Denali is probably                                                               
one that  has gotten [the] most  attention."  He said  several of                                                               
the parks and refuges in  Northwestern Alaska are probably not as                                                               
contentious, thus,  he may, after  further study,  consider Chair                                                               
Seaton's proposal  to take refuges out  of Amendment 1.   He said                                                               
he  thinks the  Tongass  National Forest  is  already off  limits                                                               
because of the  aforementioned Shields case.  He  added, "The bar                                                               
is still  very high."  Once  a land selection is  made, there are                                                               
several land managers  that can make suggestions  and "make these                                                               
allotment applications  sit on  ... their desks  for years."   He                                                               
said  he  sides with  applicants  of  the allotment,  because  he                                                               
thinks the federal land managers  have a huge advantage, which is                                                               
why he is "arguing so strenuously for this."  He stated:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     I  understand your  concern -  don't get  me wrong.   I                                                                    
     don't want  inholdings to become  a barrier  to healthy                                                                    
     management of those  parks.  I tend to  agree with you.                                                                    
     But  I  think,  together  with  inholdings  that  we've                                                                    
     already  had, it's  been  proven  that both  management                                                                    
     pressure from parks and political  or public opinion, I                                                                    
     guess you'd  say, has kept  those even from  being what                                                                    
     they were promised  they could be.  So,  I am concerned                                                                    
     about  putting this  in  a resolution.    I think  it's                                                                    
     something we need  to watch, but I think  it would send                                                                    
     the wrong language.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:33:17 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  moved to  adopt Amendment 1  to Amendment  1, which                                                               
would remove ",  Refuge," from the first "WHEREAS"  and remove "a                                                               
national wildlife  refuge," from  the "FURTHER  RESOLVED" portion                                                             
of Amendment 1.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
9:33:53 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected to Amendment  1 to Amendment 1.  He                                                               
offered his understanding that if  there was an allotment made in                                                               
a  national   park,  "they  wouldn't   be  allowed   to  exercise                                                               
subsistence  rights anyway  ...,  but they  would  be allowed  to                                                               
build a lodge."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
9:34:12 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL said  he  does  not think  Representative                                                               
Gatto's  statement is  accurate.   He  offered his  understanding                                                               
that subsistence  rights in national  parks are  guaranteed under                                                               
the  Alaska National  Interest Lands  Conservation Act  (ANILCA),                                                               
but with some  limitations.  He said it is  true that building on                                                               
the land  would be allowed, but  he would debate anyone  who said                                                               
big hotels  would show up on  the land.  However,  he stated that                                                               
he thinks  "they should have the  right to do on  their land what                                                               
any  of us  have the  right to  do  on our  land."   He said  the                                                               
reality  is  that  most  of  [the  Native  American  Vietnam  Era                                                               
veterans] want land for traditional uses.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:35:16 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  maintained his objection to  Amendment 1 to                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
9:35:29 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER,  regarding the  Tongass being  off limits                                                               
because  of the  Shields case,  noted that  the resolution  would                                                               
urge  that  the  allotments  denied under  the  Shields  case  be                                                               
reopened  and approved,  which she  said would  "put the  Tongass                                                               
back on the table."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
9:36:06 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL responded,  "The  chances  of us  getting                                                               
that  are probably  pretty slim,  but I  think it's  a reasonable                                                               
request."    Both H.R.  1811  and  S.  2000  do not  include  the                                                               
Tongass.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:36:42 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ELKINS  maintained   his  [previously  inaudible]                                                               
objection to Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:37:21 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  asked  for   confirmation  that  a  double                                                               
negative  is involved,  thus, Amendment  1 to  Amendment 1  would                                                               
allow national wildlife refuges to be used.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
9:37:36 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON  answered  that's  correct.    He  offered  further                                                               
clarification.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
9:38:22 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  said  he  agrees  with  Amendment  1  to                                                               
Amendment 1, but still does not like Amendment 1 itself.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:38:37 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was taken.    Representatives  Gatto,  Lynn,                                                               
Ramras,  Gardner, and  Seaton voted  in favor  of Amendment  1 to                                                               
Amendment   1.     Representative   Elkins   voted  against   it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 passed by a vote of 5-1.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
9:39:51 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON read  Conceptual Amendment 1 [as  amended] and asked                                                               
if there was any objection.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
9:40:22 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVES RAMRAS  AND ELKINS  objected to Amendment  1, [as                                                               
amended].                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:40:28 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated that he likes  HJR 27 the way it was                                                               
brought  to  the committee.    In  response  to a  question  from                                                               
Representative Gatto, he reiterated his statement.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
9:41:03 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ELKINS indicated that  he objected for a reason  similar [to that                                                               
of Representative Ramras].                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:41:07 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON spoke to Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:42:01 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL,  in   response  to   a  question   from                                                               
Representative  Gatto, reiterated  his  understanding that  under                                                               
ANILCA  there  are some  guarantees  for  subsistence use  within                                                               
national parks.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL,   in  response   to  a  request   for  a                                                               
definition  of  "subsistence"  from  Representative  Gatto,  said                                                               
there are some  restrictions, but it has to  do with guaranteeing                                                               
harvesting of  fish and wildlife "for  certain subsistence uses."                                                               
He  said  he  would  have   to  review  that  information  before                                                               
expounding further on it.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:42:47 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL,  in   response  to   a  question   from                                                               
Representative  Lynn,   reiterated  that  he  does   not  support                                                               
Amendment 1, as amended.  He stated:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     If you go  back under ... the D.2  selection of ANILCA,                                                                    
     there [were]  a lot  of lands that  were taken  off the                                                                    
     table by the President of  the United States, under the                                                                    
     Antiquities Act,  that did  not get  to go  through the                                                                    
     public  process   and  really  violated   these  Native                                                                    
     allotment possibilities.  So,  I think the park system,                                                                    
     the refuge areas, and the  monuments, did not take into                                                                    
     account the  hanging issue of  Native allotments.   So,                                                                    
     as far  as I'm  concerned, they  have the  first right.                                                                    
     And  so, that's  one of  the reasons  why I've  been so                                                                    
     adamant about it.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
9:43:51 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representatives  Gardner and Seaton                                                               
voted  in favor  of  Amendment 1,  as  amended.   Representatives                                                               
Elkins, Lynn,  Ramras, and  Gatto voted  against it.   Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 1, as amended, failed by a vote of 2-4.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
9:44:31 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER offered  her  understanding  that HJR  27                                                               
addresses misinformation and broken promises,  and she said it is                                                               
never too  late to remedy  a mistake  or unfairness.   She stated                                                               
that the issue  that is troublesome for her is  that the proposed                                                               
resolution addresses  only Vietnam  Veteran Era veterans  and not                                                               
veterans from other wars.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:45:46 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that  he asked the same question                                                               
when  the  issue was  first  brought  to  him.   The  answer,  he                                                               
explained, is  that the Native  people "had access to  this right                                                               
up into  the '70s."   The fact is, he  said, many did  not apply.                                                               
He stated that  he lays much of  the blame for that  "at the feet                                                               
of BLM."   He  offered further  details.   He reiterated  that he                                                               
thinks it is  an issue of fairness to ensure  that Native Vietnam                                                               
veterans  from  the  entire  Vietnam  Era  are  given  access  to                                                               
allotment applications.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
9:49:19 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether  the Korean War was classified                                                               
as  war or  police action,  and why  veterans from  that conflict                                                               
aren't included in HJR 27.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:49:52 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response  to the former question, said                                                               
it wouldn't make  a difference if a veteran was  involved in war,                                                               
cold war, or police action.   He said the reasons that the Korean                                                               
War is not included in the  resolution are similar to the reasons                                                               
he  previously stated  to  Representative  Gardner regarding  why                                                               
veterans of other wars are not included.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
9:50:50 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  said he  applauds Representative  Coghill's effort.                                                               
He  stated that  he  thinks without  Amendment  1 [text  provided                                                               
previously] it  will be  more difficult to  get U.S.  Congress to                                                               
accept HJR  27.  He  said, "I'm  afraid that the  legislation, as                                                               
constructed, will draw numerous  critics because of the potential                                                               
for  degrading national  parks [and]  monuments and  delaying the                                                               
gas pipeline."   He encouraged Representative  Coghill to revisit                                                               
those issues and see if there is any way to address them.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
9:52:43 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  moved  to  report  CSHJR  27(MLV)  out  of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal  notes.   There  being  no  objection, CSHJR  27(MLV)  was                                                               
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HB 461-LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
9:53:19 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON announced that the  last order of business was HOUSE                                                               
BILL  NO. 461,  "An  Act  relating to  disclosure  to the  Alaska                                                               
Public  Offices Commission  of information  about certain  income                                                               
received as  compensation for  personal services  by legislators,                                                               
public  members of  the Select  Committee on  Legislative Ethics,                                                               
and  legislative  directors  subject  to the  provisions  of  law                                                               
setting standards of conduct for  legislative branch officers and                                                               
employees; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
9:53:20 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER  presented  HB   461  as  sponsor.    She                                                               
described  the Alaska  Public Offices  Commission (APOC)  as both                                                               
active and  capable, and she  said APOC's  job is to  "follow the                                                               
money" and  allow the  public adequate  information.   She stated                                                               
that currently  a candidate could  accept $10,000  for consulting                                                               
work and list the amount of  money without having to explain what                                                               
work was  done for the  money.  She  said that doesn't  allow the                                                               
public to  measure or evaluate  any conflicts that  candidate may                                                               
have or  any interest  people might have  in what  that candidate                                                               
does.   Representative Gardner  said she is  not "married  to the                                                               
specific language" in the bill and would welcome suggestions.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
9:55:23 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON, in  response to a remark  by Representative Ramras,                                                               
clarified  that  the  proposed  legislation is  not  set  out  to                                                               
challenge  or impugn  any particular  people in  the legislature,                                                               
and he  asked that  the committee  focus on  the issues  that are                                                               
brought forward by the bill.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
9:55:46 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER  said the  bill applies "to  all of  us in                                                               
exactly the same way."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
9:55:57 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked what  Representative Gardner may have                                                               
heard from the public to cause concern and drive the bill.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:56:15 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER related  that she  has heard  from people                                                               
who want  to know "where  the money  comes from in  our campaigns                                                               
and  in our  own  personal  lives."   She  said that  information                                                               
allows people  to evaluate how  decisions are made and  what kind                                                               
of  factors   influence  candidates.     She   offered  examples.                                                               
Representative Gardner stated that  there has been a longstanding                                                               
tradition of  revealing where the  money comes from,  a tradition                                                               
that she indicated has broad public support.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
9:57:32 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS  asked how  a distinction is  drawn between                                                               
the disparities  in attorney  fee amounts.   He  proffered, "What                                                               
appears like a value to one  person may appear to be an excessive                                                               
charge to another person."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
9:58:46 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER  responded  that  Representative  Ramras'                                                               
comment  parallels a  comment that  Representative Gruenberg  had                                                               
recently made to  her:  "An attorney may be  able to do something                                                               
in a  half-hour phone call  that he could  charge a lot  of money                                                               
for and  not necessarily  want to  reveal to  his client  that it                                                               
took him  only half  an hour  to do  the job."   She  stated that                                                               
nevertheless she  thinks "we owe  it to  the public to  give them                                                               
enough information to make their evaluation."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
9:59:35 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   SEATON  asked   for  clarification   that  the   proposed                                                               
legislation  doesn't  address  the   amount  of  money  a  person                                                               
receives -  because that  information is  already required  to be                                                               
disclosed  to APOC  - but  rather what  they person  did for  the                                                               
money.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER  confirmed that  is correct.   In response                                                               
to a follow-up  question by Chair Seaton, she  said, for example,                                                               
that a  lawyer who is working  on mergers would have  to disclose                                                               
that he/she is involved in mergers,  but would not have to reveal                                                               
with which companies or what terms.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
10:00:53 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS  directed attention to language  on page 2,                                                               
lines 5-6, which read:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     and the approximate number of hours that have been or                                                                  
     will be spent performing the services                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said one attorney  with a lot of experience                                                               
could  charge  one rate,  while  another  with lesser  experience                                                               
could charge  another.  He  asked, "Why  do we feel  qualified to                                                               
attach almost a value  per hour of services to this?   ... I take                                                               
this to  mean that  there's almost a  billable rate  for personal                                                               
services ....  Is that correct?"                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
10:02:02 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered  no.  She explained,  "I think we                                                               
simply  want the  public to  understand that  real work  is being                                                               
done."  She offered an example.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
10:02:33 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  noted that the  committee had  run out of  time and                                                               
public testimony would be heard at the next hearing of the bill.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[HB 461 was heard and held.]                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
State  Affairs  Standing  Committee   meeting  was  adjourned  at                                                               
10:02:54 AM.                                                                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects