02/08/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB79 | |
| HB75 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 2007
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to reapplications for the Alaska longevity
bonus program; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 79(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 75
"An Act relating to driver's licenses and alcohol awareness
testing."
- MOVED CSHB 75(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to televisions, monitors, portable computers,
and similar devices in motor vehicles; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 79
SHORT TITLE: LONGEVITY BONUS REAPPLICATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN, THOMAS, GUTTENBERG, KERTTULA
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, FIN
02/08/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 75
SHORT TITLE: DRIVERS LICENSE: ALCOHOL AWARENESS/MINOR
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, FIN
02/06/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/06/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL SICA, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Lynn, joint
prime sponsor of HB 79, reviewed the changes made in Version M.
ELLIE FITZJARRALD, Acting Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
79.
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
79.
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the legal aspects of HB 79.
PAT LUBY, Advocacy Director
AARP Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.
HERB SIMON
Nelchina, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testifying on behalf of himself, offered
remarks regarding the State of Alaska's SeniorCare Program,
during the hearing on HB 79.
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of HB 75, reviewed the
changes made in Version M.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 75.
ROBERT MYERS, JR.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 75.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:06:26 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johansen, Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HB 79-LONGEVITY BONUS REAPPLICATIONS
8:07:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 79, "An Act relating to reapplications for the Alaska
longevity bonus program; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 79, Version 25-LS0359\C, Cook,
2/5/07.]
8:07:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 79, Version 25-LS0359\M, Cook, 2/7/07, as a work
draft.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
8:08:23 AM
MICHAEL SICA, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Lynn, joint prime
sponsor of HB 79, reviewed the changes made in Version M.
First, he noted that Section 1 had been reworded to make it
easier to read. Added to Section 1 is another compliance
requirement, AS 47.45.030(a), which read as follows:
(a) After qualification, a recipient shall notify
the commissioner of health and social services when
the recipient expects to be absent from the state if
the absence is for a continuous period that exceeds 60
days. After that notification, the recipient may no
longer receive bonuses from the Department of Health
and Social Services after the last regularly approved
monthly application. Upon returning to the state, the
recipient may again make application for a bonus.
Failure to notify the commissioner of an expected
absence may be grounds for disqualification.
MR. SICA relayed that Section 1(a) and 1(b) include technical
changes that would replace the Department of Administration with
the Department of Health and Social Services [as the
administrator of the reapplication forms].
8:09:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Version M.
There being no further objection, Version M was before the
committee as a work draft.
CHAIR LYNN emphasized that HB 79 would not restore funding for
the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program; however, it would make
reapplication possible for previously qualified bonus
recipients. No applications will be issued, unless both the
legislature and governor agree to refund the Alaska Longevity
Bonus Program.
8:10:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated that back in 2002, he made a campaign promise
to do his best to protect the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program.
He revealed, as a manner of disclosure, that neither he nor
anyone else in his family has ever qualified for the longevity
bonus. He offered a history of the legislature's past actions,
which led to the demise of the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program,
as follows:
On [May 8, 2003,] the then commissioner of [the
Department of] Administration came before ... [the
House] State Affairs Committee and presented House
Bill 158, the previous governor's bill to eliminate
the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program]. I told the then
commissioner, among other things, that I believed the
[Alaska Longevity Bonus Program] was a de facto
contract between Alaska and its senior citizens. ...
The previous governor's bill did pass out of the
[House] State Affairs Committee, with five out of
seven "do not pass" recommendations. A similar bill
in the Senate to eliminate the bonus - Senate Bill 117
- came to the House floor for a final vote on May 20,
2003. The bill was defeated in the House on May 20,
with a vote of 25 to 13, with 2 excused absences, and
as a result, the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program] was
... saved. Thirteen of the legislators who voted
against the governor's bill to eliminate the
[longevity] bonus are in today's Twenty-Fifth [Alaska
State] Legislature, and that happens to be eight
Republicans and five Democrats - plus the two who were
excused.
Then, on June 12, 2003, the then governor line item
vetoed funding for the [Alaska Longevity Bonus
Program] that the legislature had ... restored. On
January 12, the first day of the next session, an
attempt to call a Joint Session of the Legislature to
override the governor's veto funding failed. As a
result, there has been no funding of the [Alaska
Longevity Bonus Program] since the governor's veto.
However, ... and this is the important part, the
longevity bonus statutes have never ... been taken off
the books. In other words, to restore the [Alaska
Longevity Bonus Program] as it was requires only that
the program be funded. ... Governor [Sarah] Palin has
included that funding in her budget, and, along with
many others, I do thank her for that.
... If the administration and the legislature agree to
fund the bonus - as I personally hope that they do -
legislation that permits formerly eligible persons to
re-apply is required. And that's all this bill is
about, and nothing else. It is my desire, if
possible, to pass this fairly simple bill out of
committee today.
8:13:40 AM
MR. SICA explained that when the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program
shut down, people stopped filing their required monthly
applications, and "thereby violated continuous eligibility
procedures for future payments." The result was that those
former recipients were disqualified from the program for
violating statutes that were impossible to follow. He
emphasized that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that the
remaining recipients who qualified for the program before it was
shut down in 2003 are not disqualified from future payments due
to circumstances beyond their control. He related that Governor
Palin has included $33 million in a budget request to restore
the program "for" fiscal year 2008 (FY 08). Without a bill such
as HB 79, he said, the State of Alaska could have a funded
Alaska Longevity Bonus Program with no one eligible to receive
monthly payments.
8:16:04 AM
MR. SICA relayed that the Department of Law has said
reapplication legislation is necessary in order to [reinstate]
the program if it is restored. He reviewed that Section 1(a)
would require the commissioner of the Department of Health and
Social Services to accept reapplication from people under the
following circumstances: they were qualified to receive a
monthly longevity bonus payment for January 1, 1997 - the day
after admission to the program was closed; they were eligible
for the bonus in June of 2003 - when the program stopped being
funded; and they have maintained continuous state residency
between June 20, 2003, and the date on which the reapplication
is filed. Section 1(b), he said, would require that the
reapplication be filed before January 1, 2008, and it directs
the Department of Health and Social Services to prepare a
reapplication form and require evidence of eligibility for the
bonus.
MR. SICA noted that Section 1(c) would give the department the
right to determine if a person who reapplies meets the
requirements set forth in subsection (a), and it would set the
amount of the person's monthly bonus, based on what that person
received before the funding was eliminated. Section 2, he said,
sets an effective date of July 1, 2007, which was requested by
the Department of Law.
8:19:31 AM
ELLIE FITZJARRALD, Acting Director, Division of Public
Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
noted that there are three fiscal notes included in the
committee packet: one addressing Alaska Longevity Bonus Program
grants; one addressing funds that are used to replace the
federal social security supplemental income (SSI) received by
some recipients of the longevity bonus; and one addressing the
administrative component to administer the program. She
explained that SSI is a federal, needs-based program that counts
the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program as income, thus there is an
Alaska Longevity Bonus (ALB) "Hold Harmless" Program to replace
those lost benefits "so people aren't harmed from it."
MS. FITZJARRALD, in response to a question from Representative
Coghill, said the food stamp program, which is 100 percent
federally funded, would also count the Alaska Longevity Bonus as
income; however, "the other programs would not count the Alaska
Longevity Bonus as income."
8:22:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL surmised, "That would be counted on your
eligibility to get senior care."
MS. FITZJARRALD said the SeniorCare Program is scheduled to
sunset June 30, [2007], and the governor is working on a
proposal to "introduce legislation," after which time it will be
possible to discuss the relationship between SeniorCare Program
and the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program.
8:22:54 AM
MS. FITZJARRALD, in response to a question from Representative
Johnson, explained that the SSI program counts all income, but
allows a $20 deduction from income. For example, if a person
receives social security retirement benefits and the Alaska
Longevity Bonus, those two benefits would be added together and
the $20 would be subtracted from that. She said, "If they don't
have any income at all, and are receiving only needs based
benefits, and the Alaska Longevity Bonus was their only source
of income, then that $20 would be reduced from their Alaska
Longevity income amount." In response to a follow-up question
from Representative Johnson, she confirmed that the Alaska
permanent fund dividend (PFD) is also counted as income by the
federal SSI program. She added that there is a separate PFD
hold harmless program set up to replace those lost benefits.
8:24:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked which fiscal note would reflect the
cost of reopening the application process.
8:24:50 AM
MS. FITZJARRALD explained that the governor's FY 08 budget
request already includes funds for the reinstatement of the
Alaska Longevity Bonus Program; the previously mentioned fiscal
notes represent changes to what is in the governor's request.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that he supports the concept of the
bill but will reserve final support until he sees the final
budget.
8:27:02 AM
MS. FITZJARRALD, in response to a request from Chair Lynn,
directed attention to the fiscal note with the component named,
"Longevity Bonus Grants," and noted that the $2.7 million
savings reflected on it is compared to the governor's budget.
She continued:
Essentially, what's occurred [are] two things. This
legislation phases in the program between July 1 and
January 1. ... What we've taken into consideration is
that ... there may be staggered applications. In
addition, the current law only allows an accrual of
two months of longevity bonus checks from the point of
application. So, these savings are a result of those
two considerations. The governor's budget was
estimated, assuming that all recipients would be
eligible for a full twelve months. So, the savings
that are generated are here, taking the two
considerations of the reapplication and the accrual of
only two months of benefits.
8:28:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Fitzjarrald to clarify
whether she is saying that the governor did not fund the hold
harmless provision when she included funding for the Longevity
Bonus program in the budget.
MS. FITZJARRALD said that is not what she is saying. She said
there are over $1 million in the governor's budget request for
"Longevity Bonus hold harmless." She continued:
What this $350,000 fiscal note is: Since the time
that the governor's budget was prepared, we've done
some further analysis about recipients and what would
be needed. We know that [there are] approximately 970
or so individuals getting the federal SSI check. So,
we've recalculated what would be needed for [the]
Longevity Bonus hold harmless program, and there's
about $350,000 that is needed to fully fund that.
8:29:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concluded, "So, this is not really a
fiscal note on this bill; it's a recalculation of your figures
on the governor's budget."
MS. FITZJARRALD responded, "... It takes in consideration both:
what's currently in the governor's request, and the
reapplication in ... HB 79."
8:29:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern because Alaska law
"limits fiscal notes to the additional cost resulting from this
legislation." He said he wants to know what the additional cost
for the hold harmless provision would be only resulting from the
proposed legislation, not from the recalculation of the
governor's figures. He added, "That is a discussion that should
be reserved for that issue in the budget."
MS. FITZJARRALD said she wants to hold comment and defer to
Janet Clark, who is a budget expert.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that before HB 79 reaches the
House Finance Committee for consideration, the department
generate an amended fiscal note "on this hold harmless,"
reducing it to reflect only the effect of the proposed
legislation.
MS. FITS responded, "We'll take that under consideration."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what efforts will be made to
notify seniors.
MS. FITZJARRALD indicated that, as has been done for past
programs, the department would make significant efforts to do
public outreach, and contact senior centers and AARP, for
example.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that senior citizens have "quite a
communication network."
8:32:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he is concerned about
"the people who will fall through the cracks." He asked that
the department mail notice to the last known address of each
surviving former recipient of the Alaska Longevity Bonus.
8:33:39 AM
MS. FITZJARRALD confirmed that the department plans to do that.
She named other past outreach efforts that have been made. In
response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, she
indicated that the cost of [the outreach efforts] is planned for
in the governor's budget request.
8:34:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested the committee "zero out" the
fiscal note [with the component, "Longevity Bonus Hold
Harmless"] and let the House Finance Committee rework it. He
indicated the understanding of the committee is that "the cost
won't be there."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the fiscal note related
to grants is also speculative and would need to be reworked.
MS. FITZJARRALD replied that the fiscal note reflects the
departments fair assumptions of what has occurred since 2003.
She said it is difficult to predict how many former recipients
may have died or moved out of state, for example. However, she
stated that using the estimations from the information available
in the department, along with the projections from the time the
program was unfunded to the present, the department estimates
that there are 12,000 seniors who would still qualify. Of
those, she added, some may have left the state or gone into
long-term care and will not qualify, or perhaps will have passed
away before the bill takes effect.
8:37:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested a letter be sent to the House
Finance Committee, which may serve to address Representative
Johnson's concern, and which might read as follows:
The [House] State Affairs [Standing] Committee would
like the [House] Finance Committee to take a careful
look at the fiscal notes, because the number of
recipients cannot be determined precisely, and the
governor's proposed budget for the reinstatement of
the [Alaska] Longevity Bonus is somewhat speculative.
8:37:46 AM
CHAIR LYNN said that if the bill is passed out of committee, he,
as one of the [joint prime sponsors] of the bill, could then
discuss with Representative Gruenberg the possibility of sending
a letter.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked a question pertaining to whether or
not the time requirement [in the amendment] is consistent with a
similar time requirement for PFD applications.
MS. FITZJARRALD said she would get back to Representative
Johnson with an answer.
8:38:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL mentioned the possibility of a legal
challenge and asked for feedback on that issue.
CHAIR LYNN clarified that that possibility could occur if the
Longevity Bonus was refunded, and this bill does not refund it.
8:39:29 AM
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law,
addressed Representative Doll's request. Upon clarifying that
Representative Doll was referring to a memorandum [from Tamara
Cook, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, dated
September 22, 2006], she stated the following:
I've reviewed that memo, and I agree with Tam Cook's
analysis that there are potential legal challenges
that could be brought, relative to the program, should
it be funded eventually. That being said, as has been
... discussed here, from the fiscal aspect of the
bill, it's kind of difficult to predict what may or
may not happen, or the likelihood or the success of
any constitutional challenge that might be brought.
... When the Longevity Bonus Program was brought
forth, it was challenged, and a lawsuit was brought
forward in the superior court, at which time the state
superior court found the program constitutional. And
..., as I understand it, ... that case was not
appealed any further to the Alaska Supreme Court. But
that superior court decision was based on very narrow
grounds, relative to the ... way that the legislation
had been originally drafted. And so, the concerns
that Ms. Cook outlined in her memo, [are] significant
concerns for any future longevity bonus program,
because that narrow ground will no longer exist. And
so, there is the potential for a legal challenge,
regardless of how it's funded or how it's organized,
or what have you, as you can imagine. People will
challenge it for any reason or for whatever reason.
MS. KRALY, in response to remark from Chair Lynn, confirmed that
the challenges that may happen would be in regard to the
original program, not for HB 79.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the bill addresses not only
reinstatement issues, but also qualification issues, which he
predicted will open up a new discussion.
MS. KRALY confirmed that's correct. She said that is a point
made in Ms. Cook's memo. If the bill passes and individuals are
once again made eligible for the program, some of the narrow
grounds that were challenged in the past will no longer be
legitimate.
8:42:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for clarification regarding "those
that would have been eligible and are not eligible any more."
MS. KRALY responded that she has not done a comprehensive
analysis of that question, but it is something that the
department will continue to look at, should HB 79 pass, in order
to advise the governor regarding potential constitutional and
legal questions.
8:43:56 AM
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
said that when the Longevity Bonus Program was being phased out
- a "stair-stepping" process - there was a challenge at the
superior court level. She added, "Even the stair-stepping part
has not been blessed by the supreme court." She opined that
there is an outside possibility that the supreme court would not
agree with the superior court on the phase-out issue.
Furthermore, the time lapsed since the phasing out of the
program creates a complication, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is trying to understand what the
ramifications of "changing some of the criteria" are.
MS. COOK said she would be happy to meet with legislators to
offer a more in-depth briefing of the legal aspects of the
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that because the committee has
been addressing legal issues, the bill should perhaps be
referred to the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He said
those [legal] questions should be on the record. He asked Ms.
Fitzjarrald how many people from the SeniorCare Program would
"fall inside the qualifications of this program."
MS. FITZJARRALD replied that there are approximately 2,500-2,600
seniors currently receiving assistance from the SeniorCare
Program who were also former recipients of the Alaska Longevity
Bonus.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if Ms. Fitzjarrald has any idea how
many seniors outside of the needs-based category would also
qualify "for this."
8:47:49 AM
MS. FITZJARRALD said she does not, because that is "a very
difficult number to get to with the information available."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he wants to know how many
seniors in Alaska won't qualify. He indicated that he finds it
difficult to support a bill where there may be people with great
need who will not qualify and many with no need who will.
MS. FITZJARRALD said she would try to get those answers for
Representative Coghill.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his opinion that the original
reason for the [Alaska Longevity Bonus Program] was "to honor
those who had settled the land." He indicated that the court
cases changed the dynamic of the program, shifting it to a one-
year eligibility requirement. Soon, he said, "it was not then
so much about how old they were, but what year they applied."
Now, many of those who did settle the land are not eligible, he
indicated.
8:50:41 AM
MR. SICA noted three pages of background information included in
the committee packet: a history of the Alaska Longevity Bonus
Program; a statistical [summary]; and a population projection by
age, produced by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce
Development's Research and Analysis Section. He suggested that
the population projection page may answer Representative
Coghill's questions.
8:51:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented on the projections shown in the
handout.
8:52:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Cook to provide copies of the
"Maggard opinion" to the committee. Next, he directed attention
to the reference to AS 47.45.030(a) on page 1, line 13. He
cited the statute, which read as follows:
(a) After qualification, a recipient shall notify
the commissioner of health and social services when
the recipient expects to be absent from the state if
the absence is for a continuous period that exceeds 60
days. After that notification, the recipient may no
longer receive bonuses from the Department of Health
and Social Services after the last regularly approved
monthly application. Upon returning to the state, the
recipient may again make application for a bonus.
Failure to notify the commissioner of an expected
absence may be grounds for disqualification.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated:
It seems to me that if the purpose of this bill is to
get around that statute, the application of that
statute just wouldn't apply in this case, where the
program was "defunded" on a ... more-or-less permanent
basis. Nobody would or should be expected to have
notified the commissioner when the program was out,
and it seems to me the department has the
administrative discretion to waive that notification
for disqualification because of the final sentence [of
the aforementioned statute].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he does not think any court would
apply AS 47.45.030(a) to this situation, and he urged Ms. Kraly,
Ms. Fitzjarrald, and Ms. Cook to see if the issue could be
solved administratively, instead of through passing HB 79.
8:55:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said the discussions put forth thus far are
interesting and need to be held either in the House Finance
Committee or the House Judiciary Standing Committee. However,
the proposed legislation before the House State Affairs Standing
Committee, he said, simply asks whether or not to reestablish
the application process.
8:57:07 AM
MS. FITZJARRALD emphasized the department's position is that the
bill, as well as policy guidance, is needed in regard to
reestablishing eligibility for the application process. She
said, "We may need to look at some of the residency provisions
because of some of the things Representative Gruenberg has
pointed out that apply to people who have left the state, but
the monthly reporting requirement applied to everybody."
8:57:48 AM
CHAIR LYNN said one of the purposes of the bill is to assist the
administration "in their side of this equation."
8:58:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to page 1, line 14,
through page 2, line 1, which read as follows:
(3) is a resident and has maintained
continuous state residency during the period between
June 30, 2003, and the date the reapplication is
filed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he would like a clear
definition of "continuous state residency".
8:59:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON declared for the record a conflict of
interest, in that his mother was a former recipient [of the
longevity bonus] and probably would qualify under the program
proposed by the bill.
CHAIR LYNN asked that Representative Johnson continue
participating in the bill process.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that his father qualifies.
9:00:44 AM
PAT LUBY, Advocacy Director, AARP Alaska, testified in support
of HB 79. He said many AARP members who previously received the
longevity bonus were pleased when Governor Sarah Palin indicated
her intent to reinstate the bonus. The proposed bill, he
relayed, is the first technical step in that process and would
allow previous bonus recipients to be eligible for the bonus if
it is reinstated.
9:01:24 AM
HERB SIMON, testifying on behalf of himself, noted that his
family has been in Alaska since 1945, and none of it members
have qualified for the longevity bonus. He indicated that the
Alaska Longevity Bonus Program, while well-intentioned, "missed
a lot of the pioneers" who built up Alaska. He noted that when
former Governor [Frank Murkowski] did away with the Alaska
Longevity Bonus Program, he replaced it with [the SeniorCare
Program]. Mr. Simon opined that the SeniorCare Program:
appears to be more equitable; doesn't have the "hangnails" that
are attached to reestablishing the Alaska Longevity Bonus
Program; and is helping many "old-timers" make ends meet.
MR. SIMON talked about the rising cost of Medicaid and Medicare.
He said it is honorable to trim a declining budget and he said
he thinks it is incumbent upon the state not to commit itself to
"fiscal dedication." He said most of the folks he has spoken to
about the SeniorCare Program readily accept it. He added, "In
that regard, that would make a good future adjustment for some
of these Medicaid requirements that we're facing in the future."
MR. SIMON continued:
I think that you folks have hit on just about every
high spot, and I compliment you for your effort on it,
but I think that, at the present time, I wouldn't vote
for ... reinitiating the [Alaska Longevity Bonus
Program], and [would] more or less put our beans,
shall we say, in the SeniorCare Program, which has a
wider applicability, and it does have a [needs-based
provision] attached [to it].
CHAIR LYNN stated that he, too, thinks the [SeniorCare Program]
is a good one, and he indicated that there has been some
discussion as to how the SeniorCare Program might be integrated,
should the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program be refunded. He
reminded everyone that HB 79 is not about the funding of the
Alaska Longevity Bonus Program. That issue, he said, should
bring up spirited debate.
9:06:53 AM
MR. SICA emphasized that the intent is not to replace "the
needs-based SeniorCare Program with the promised-based [Alaska
Longevity Bonus Program] ...."
9:08:11 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
9:08:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he understands the scope of bill;
however, because of all of the references made [in the bill to
statutes relating to] "all the qualification issues and all the
legal ramifications," he reiterated his desire that the bill be
heard by the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He said
chances are that although he will not hold the bill back in
committee, he may not support it on the House floor.
9:09:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL echoed that she will not hold her vote in
committee; however, she emphasized her concern that the
SeniorCare Program could be lost.
9:09:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated for the record that he supports
HB 79, but he said he would like his legal questions answered.
He noted that there are unfair provisions in the Alaska
Longevity Bonus Program statutes that need to be addressed.
9:10:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he also will not hold the bill back,
but encourages a referral to the House Judiciary Standing
Committee. He stated he does not have a lot of confidence that,
at some point, the court will not decide that everyone over the
age of 65 qualifies [for the Alaska Longevity Bonus Program],
which would result in the state having to take away the program
once again.
9:11:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report HB 79, Version 25-LS0359\M,
Cook, 2/7/07, out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to state for the record that the
fiscal note is in need of scrutiny and he would put "amend" on
his recommendation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
CHAIR LYNN announced that [there being no further objection],
CSHB 79(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:13:07 AM to 9:18:21 AM.
HB 75-DRIVERS LICENSE: ALCOHOL AWARENESS/MINOR
9:18:40 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 75, "An Act relating to driver's licenses and alcohol
awareness testing."
[Before the committee was CSHB 75, Version 25-LS0348\E,
Luckhaupt, 1/26/07.]
9:18:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt CS HB 75, Version 25-
LS0348\M, Luckhaupt, 2/7/07, as a work draft.
9:19:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
9:19:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 75, reviewed the changes made in Version M. He
said the language, "and a person 21 years of age or older
applying for a new license", was removed from page 1, beginning
on line 7, at the recommendation of the Division of Motor
Vehicles "and others," because it would require someone who is
much older than 21 to take the alcohol and drug awareness safety
test upon renewing a license. Representative Ramras indicated
that the population he was trying to capture were [younger] and
"perhaps more socially active and more vulnerable to consumption
issues just by virtue of their activity."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS noted that on page 1, line 9, and anywhere
else applicable in the bill, after the words "alcohol" were
inserted the words, "and drug". At the request of the director
of the DMV, the time a person who has turned 21 has to go to the
DMV before his/her license expires has been increased to 90 days
after that person's twenty-first birthday. He said he thinks
this element of the bill may need perfecting to accommodate
those young people who go Outside for a semester of school or to
serve in the military. He noted that the bill has a referral to
the House Finance Committee.
9:23:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS directed attention to page 1, lines 11-12,
and said the following language is redundant and he would like
to see it deleted from Version M:
The license issued to a person after the person has
passed this test must state that the person has passed
the alcohol and drug awareness and safety test.
9:24:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS suggested he may have a conflict of
interest pertaining to HB 75, because he is a proprietor of a
facility that serves alcoholic beverages. He spoke of the
nature of youth being to try to drink at less than 21 years of
age. He shared an anecdote about a group of 7 who were asked to
leave his establishment because two members of the group were
under 21. He said the bill will not change the actions of young
people trying to drink before 21, but it will create a brighter
line [in identifying] adults and minors.
9:28:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS offered a scenario:
... If we took a 20-year-old "staffer" over to the
Baranof for lunch today, and they lost their driver's
license between here and the walk over there, and they
went to the DMV at age 20 to get a new driver's
license, they would be issued a minor's driver's
license that would now be valid until the year 2012.
And so, what we have created is this pool of minors
between the ages of 20 and 25 that we're not clear on
whether they're an adult or whether they're a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS noted that the size of the type on a
driver's license showing a person's date of birth is small,
which makes it difficult to read for those who have to check the
identification (ID). He said there are five other states that
have the automatic expiration of the driver's license [when a
minor becomes of age]. He reiterated that HB 75 would more
clearly show who is a minor, while currently, much of the burden
falls on the those checking IDs.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he believes that at the time when the
person comes in for the new license, he/she should be given a
new test regarding drug and alcohol awareness as a sort of
"booster shot of education." He said although many charges of
driving under the influence (DUI) do not result from a person
causing an accident, the effect of receiving one is
considerable. For example, a person with a DUI pays a large
fine, cannot apply for a commercial driver's license (CDL), and
is often barred from many types of jobs. He said the cost to
the person renewing his/her license is "small potatoes" compared
to the good that can come from having to take the test. He
indicated that he, the Department of Public Safety, the
[Division] of Motor Vehicles, and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers
concur that "this will be an excellent tool to limit underage
drinking and the purchase of alcohol in retail establishments
and on premise establishments." He said he does not want to
prevent anyone from renewing his/her license, thus, he would
like the DMV to allow repeated, same-day testing. He
acknowledged that the bill should address those students and
active military who are away from Alaska and whose licenses
expire while away.
9:33:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed his objection to the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 75, Version 25-LS0348\M, Luckhaupt,
2/7/07. There being no further objection, Version M was before
the committee as a work draft.
9:34:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he likes Representative Roses' idea
of having the education component at 16 and again at first
renewal. He emphasized that he likes Representative Ramras'
idea of a drawing bright line at age 21, as well as the 90-day
issue.
9:34:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS reiterated that consideration of the
population of young people in the military must happen in order
that they do not lose their rights to hold valid driver's
licenses. He pointed out that that group is the one most at
risk [for getting DUIs]. He said one issue to consider is
whether or not it is a good idea to teach 14-year-olds about
alcohol and drugs when they are not legally allowed to consume
an alcoholic beverage until age 21.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "The reality is they are on the
road, and they need to be aware of what the responsibilities and
the cost of irresponsibility are." He added that the sooner
those driving receive education, the better.
9:39:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS indicated that his opinions nearly match
those of Representative Coghill on the issue. He said the
current test is comprised of 16 questions out of a possible
1,000, and of those 16, about half relate to insurance and
alcohol awareness. He said he would like to see a test in which
10 questions are dedicated to the subject of drugs and alcohol.
He said the awareness is being pushed after the point at which
someone gets a DUI, and he thinks it should happen sooner.
9:41:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES related that as a former teacher, he knows
that children about to take a driving test are more likely to
study the driver's manual diligently than they are to bring
their math books to study math. He reminded Representative
Ramras that he had previously raised the concern about having
the alcohol and drug awareness test "upon first renewal."
However, he said he also appreciates the concern that that may
complicate things for others getting renewed licenses through
the DMV. He stated, "So, I'm going to remove that concern and
just hope that having the adequate number of questions on the
test, regardless of the age of the person who takes it the first
time will, hopefully, accomplish our objective."
9:43:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS returned to Representative Coghill's
concern and suggested that through regulation, the DMV could
change the test from 16 questions to 24, and to add an element
to the test that is more specific to drugs and alcohol.
9:43:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, said the period of a driver's license to be valid is
five years.
9:44:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, regarding the proposed 90-day period
within which someone would have to get a renewed license after
his/her twenty-first birthday, stated concern that some people
could be deployed in Iraq and may not have enough time to meet
that requirement.
9:44:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS offered some statistics. He said he is
continuing to work with the director of DMV and will most likely
provide him with this problem to solve.
CHAIR LYNN offered his recollection that while he served in the
military, his license stayed active as long as he remained on
active duty.
9:46:36 AM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, confirmed that an active duty military
personnel's driver's license does not expire, and that person,
after coming off active duty has 90 days until his/her license
would expire.
9:48:15 AM
ROBERT MYERS, JR. stated that although he is an intern in the
office of Representative Peggy Wilson, he is testifying on
behalf of himself. He said the discussion he has heard thus far
has addressed cost and limitation, but not whether or not the
bill would work. He said he does not object to the driver's
license expiring at 21, but he does object to the test being
required. He explained:
Common practice for high school and college students
is to learn enough for the test and then forget it
all. Knowledge is retained only when there is a
chance to put it into practice. Unfortunately, in
this case there are two groups of individuals that do
so: the first is the group that is already aware of
the effects of alcohol and drugs and [does] not need
this test to remind them. The second group puts this
knowledge into practice when [it uses] these
substances. Either way, this test will have no effect
on people's habits.
9:50:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he challenges the premise of Mr.
Meyers, Jr., because the bill is intended to give a clear line
of information about driving while under the influence, not
necessarily to change people's habits. The bill would give them
a "clear line of responsibility," he said.
CHAIR LYNN proffered that most of the bills that are heard would
be hard pressed to change lifestyles, but they can make people
more accountable or aware by "pointing them in a different
direction."
9:51:45 AM
MR. MYERS, in response to a question from Representative
Johnson, said he finds it highly unlikely that any individual
would change his/her choices based on simply taking another test
at the DMV at the age of 21.
9:52:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said if the proposed legislation, with
its fiscal note of $5,000, can affect the actions of one person,
it would be worth it.
9:52:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that he does not think it is the
intent of bill to change behavior, but rather to raise
awareness.
9:53:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report CSHB 25-LS0348\M,
Luckhaupt, 2/7/07, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to thank Mr. Meyers for his
testimony and to point out that the sponsor had mentioned an
amendment he would like adopted.
9:53:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES withdrew his motion.
9:53:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 1, as follows:
On page 1, beginning on line 11:
Delete: "The license issued to a person after the
person has passed this test must state that the person
has passed the alcohol and drug awareness and safety
test."
CHAIR LYNN asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1.
There being none, it was so ordered.
9:54:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report CSHB 75, Version 25-
LS0348\M, Luckhaupt, 2/7/07, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 75(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:55:43 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|