Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/28/1996 08:50 AM FIN
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 28 March 1996 8:50 A.M. TAPES SFC-96, #57, Sides 1 & 2 SFC-96, #58, Side 1 CALL TO ORDER Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at approximately 8:50 A.M. PRESENT In addition to Co-chairman Halford, co-chairman Frank, Senators Phillips, Sharp, Donley, Rieger and Zharoff were present when the meeting was convened. Also Attending: Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration; Allison Gordon, aide to Senator Steve Frank; Diane Worley, Director, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services; Senator Jim Duncan; Carole Edwards, R.N., B.S.N., O.C.N.; Gene Dau, AARP and VFW; Janet Parker, Retirement & Benefits Manager, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration; Bill Chisham; Brad Pierce, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor; Senator John Torgerson; and aides to committee members. D. Rebecca Snow, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Child Support Enforcement Section, Civil Division Fairbanks, Department of Law testified via teleconference. SUMMARY INFORMATION SENATE BILL NO. 152 "An Act relating to geographic differentials for the salaries of certain state employees who are not members of a collective bargaining unit; relating to periodic salary surveys and preparation of an annual pay schedule regarding certain state employees; relating to certain state aid calculations based on geographic differentials for state employee salaries; and providing for an effective date." Co-chairman Halford HELD bill in committee pending preparation of new CS. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 259(HES) "An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska Commission on Aging; and providing for an effective date." Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration testified on behalf of the bill and further answered questions by committee members regarding the fiscal note. Co-chairman Halford asked her to submit a new zero fiscal note. Senator Frank moved technical amendment page 1 line 5 the year "2000" be changed to "2003" and by a vote of 4 - 3 it was adopted. Senator Sharp MOVED CSSB 259(FIN) and without objection it was REPORTED OUT with zero fiscal note from Department of Administration and individual recommendations. SENATE BILL NO. 289 "An Act relating to runaway minors and their families or legal custodians." Senator Steve Frank spoke briefly on behalf of the bill. Allison Gordon, aide to Senator Frank also testified on behalf of the bill. Senator Frank moved amendment #1 and without objection it was adopted. Senator Rieger moved amendments to amendment #2 and without objection it was adopted. Senator Frank moved amendment #2 as amended and without objection it was adopted. D. Rebecca Snow, Assistant Attorney General, Fairbanks and Diane Worley, Director Family and Youth Services testified regarding the bill and both agreed to work with Senator Frank as the bill moves through its processes. Senator Frank MOVED CSSB 289(FIN) and without objection it was REPORTED OUT with individual recommendations. Department of Health and Social Services will submit new fiscal note. SENATE BILL NO. 253 "An Act relating to insurance coverage for costs of prostate cancer detection." Senator Jim Duncan testified briefly on behalf of the bill and explained his amendment #1 as supported by the American Cancer Society. He has no objection to Pap smear examinations being added. Carole Edwards, Gene Dau and Bill Chisham testified briefly on behalf of the bill. Janet Parker, Division of Retirement and Benefits testified briefly regarding the fiscal note and answered questions by committee members. Senator Sharp moved amendment #1 and without objection it was adopted. Co-chairman Halford HELD bill in committee. Senator Rieger will check cancer screening. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the budget reserve fund. Senator Rieger briefly explained SJR 30. Brad Pierce, Office of Budget and Management testified in support of the bill. Senator Rieger MOVED SJR 30 and without objection it was REPORTED OUT with $2.2 fiscal note from the Officer of the Governor and individual recommendations. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 198(RES) "An Act establishing the Homer Airport Critical Habitat Area." Senator John Torgerson testified on behalf of the bill. Senator Donley moved amendment #1 and without objection it was adopted. Senator Sharp MOVED CSSB 198(FIN) and without objection it was REPORTED OUT with zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations. SENATE BILL NO. 152 "An Act relating to geographic differentials for the salaries of certain state employees who are not members of a collective bargaining unit; relating to periodic salary surveys and preparation of an annual pay schedule regarding certain state employees; relating to certain state aid calculations based on geographic differentials for state employee salaries; and providing for an effective date." Co-chairman Halford introduced SB 152 and asked that a new CS be prepared. He said there is about $900,000 in the fiscal note out of about $1.2 million. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 259(HES) "An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska Commission on Aging; and providing for an effective date." Alison Elgee, Department of Administration was invited to join the committee. She indicated service on the Alaska Commission on Aging. This commission has been in existence since about 1981. It was formerly known as the Older Alaskans Commission. Legislative Audit conducted a sunset review this year and for the second time recommended this commission be removed from the sunset review provisions or if that was unacceptable the sunset date be set at the year 2003. The Governor introduced the legislation to remove the commission from the sunset review. When Senate H&SS took it up they were uncomfortable with the complete removal and adopted the committee substitute now before this committee. She said she did not believe they understood the audit was actually recommending a date further out. She said they would prefer to have the commission removed as Legislative Audit had recommended because of the work required in conducting a sunset review. There were two auditors for most of two months. There is a better utilization of those resources. Co-chairman Halford indicated that he supported the existence of the commission. Auditors should be able to decide to what extent they go into audits on things they do not find anything initially and do not get requests to spend a lot of time on. Senator Frank felt this may not lie with their professional practices. They are certified public accounts and they have rules and regulations they have to go by even if they feel it is not necessary under the circumstances. Perhaps the law should be modified. Co- chairman Halford said they could be exempted from the audit requirement without exempting them from the sunset law. Senator Frank concurred. Senator Sharp asked about the fiscal notes since the costs are already in the budget. Co-chairman Frank asked Ms. Elgee about the positive fiscal note since it is already in the budget. She said the feeling of Tam Cook was that the fiscal note should represent the amount of money to be taken out of the budget should it actually be chosen to sunset the commission. It is footnoted to show that those monies are contained in the Governor's budget. Co-chairman Halford asked if this was really a zero fiscal note and she said that as long as the commission was continued it would be zero. If the commission is eliminated the money would be deleted represented in the fiscal note. Co-chairman Halford said he wanted a new fiscal note reflecting the way the law read and she said a new zero one would be submitted. Senator Frank said maybe the sunset date should be extended and rather than get into what types of audits should be used good judgment should be used about which things need closer and more periodic review and which things need to be reviewed less often. Senator Phillips said the auditor's recommendation was the year 2003. Senator Frank moved technical amendment to change the year "2000" to "2003" and the objection of Senator Rieger was duly noted. He said no commission should have more than a four year sunset. It is a useful, subtle control on what goes on in various commissions even if the sunset process is not exercised. It is not wise to have sunsets that are longer than four years. Senator Rieger said there is not enough energy, time and money for the auditors to look at certain things and so it is a tradeoff. Senator Rieger said extensive audits do not have to be required and the budget and audit committee should decide which sunset programs require an audit and which ones do not. It could be a routine question brought to members of the commission as to which sunset audits should be done and the rest would just be a bill passing without the backup of an audit. Co- chairman Halford concurred. Budget and Audit should make a conscious decision rather than a blanket decision that says anything coming up for sunset gets a full audit. Senator Phillips said if the auditors were present the matter could be fixed internally. Senator Zharoff said this was not a runaway commission and the reports indicate a good track record. It seems that an audit can be requested at any time if any discrepancies or problems are heard of. He asked if a sunset is not automatically up for review. He concurs with the proposal of Senator Frank. The committee voted on Senator Frank's motion to change "2000" to "2003" and by a vote of 4 - 3 the motion was adopted. Senator Sharp moved CSSB 259(FIN) and without objection it was reported out with zero fiscal note from Department of Administration and individual recommendations. SENATE BILL NO. 289 "An Act relating to runaway minors and their families or legal custodians." Senator Frank spoke briefly on behalf of the bill. He said they had heard from constituents regarding what happened when a juvenile ran away from a shelter. This bill currently has a provision in it allowing an officer to pick the child up, take them into custody and get them before a judge within 48 hours so the judge can decide if the child is in need of aid or a delinquent minor. At any time during that time the child's parents can pick them up. It has a temporary detention feature. It is overwhelming the lack of a solution to the existing problem. There is no loss of real liberty in a constitutional sense. There is a constitutional question with the severability clause in the statutes. If this is stuck down through a Court case there will still be the remaining parts of the bill and it is not the intent to deny juveniles of their liberty. There is a huge problem in a small part of the population. It is incumbent upon us to formulate a way that is reasonable that gets attention to the problem. A new findings and purposes section has been submitted as amendment #1. Allison Gordon, staff aide to Senator Frank was invited to join the committee. She advised that the correct amendment without objection it was adopted. Ms. Gordon further explained amendment #M.3. It will create a new subsection (g) under AS 47.10.141 which makes it a violation for a runaway who has been taken by a police officer to a semi- secure facility to leave that place without the permission of the minor's legal custodian or from an appropriate employee of the semi-secure facility. If a minor violates this statute then the shelter must immediately notify the department, the nearest law enforcement agency and the parents of the minor's absence. Law enforcement will then be allowed to pick up a runaway that has left the semi- secure facility and temporarily detain the runaway pending a detention hearing within 48 hours. If there are no reasons for detaining the minor, such as child-in-need-of-aid or delinquency petitions, based on violating other laws, the minor would be released to the legal custodian at the detention hearing. At any time during the proceedings the minor, barring abuse cases, has the option to go home. Senator Frank explained that amendment M.4 was the findings and purposes section and M.3 was the substantiative amendment. Senator Halford indicated that M.4 was amendment Becky Snow, Department of Law, Fairbanks testified via teleconference. The department was concerned with the proposed amendment because there was no language that provides the child that the child could get out of detention by deciding to go home. With regards to the statement of Senator Frank that the period of detention provided for by the amendment is very limited on page 2, line 8 and 9, that is an amendment to what is now the temporary detention statute that now applies only to juveniles arrested or detained for committing delinquent behaviour. It provides right now that if the Court finds probable cause the Court can determine to detain the minor based on certain additional findings. This amendment provides that if the Court finds probable cause at the temporary detention hearing the runaway minor could be detained pending the hearing on the delinquency or child-in-need-of-aid petition. That can be a substantial period of time. Even it if is a child-in-need-of-aid petition, particularly the larger jurisdictions like Anchorage, months before the petition for adjudication is brought on for the adjudication trial. That was a matter of considerable concern, especially if no criminal conduct is being alleged. Usually criminal conduct is the only constitutional basis for depriving a person of their freedom to move about. The other concern is tacking the remedy for the very frustrating pattern of runaway behaviour on to the delinquency statute creating an inconsistency in the way each runaway will be treated as compared to runaways handled AS 47.10.141, where a police officer may take a minor into emergency, protective custody under AS 47.10.141 when certain conditions have been met, and then have to bring the minor before the court within 24 hours. There may well be an equal protection problem created by this inconsistency in the handling of runaways. None of them are being charged with any criminal conduct. Co-chairman Halford inquired of Ms. Gordon if there was a citation that showed where the minor could go home and she advised it was on page 2, line 26 of the amendment. Ms. Snow said that it was not a reference to a detention facility and once a minor was taken to a detention facility they were no longer in charge of getting out. The operators of the facility make that determination. The use of "facility" is a facility for housing runaway children and it does not automatically include detention facility. The language on page 22, line 26 is meant to give the minor control over whether they get out of the detention facility and that raises an ambiguity as to the meaning of "facility" in the bill itself. Senator Frank explained that he wanted the parents or legal guardian of the child to be able to pick up the child so that it was not up to the child as much as it was up to the parents to come and retrieve the child. Ms. Snow said that the bill would amend AS 47.10.141 to give the power to the parents or legal custodian to determine whether the minor is brought back to the legal custodian's residence or where the minor is taken. That would be consistent. Senator Frank said that was what he had intended. There should not be a situation where the juvenile is in the detention center for several hours and the parents cannot go and pick them up. If they are ready to reconcile and the child is ready to go home it seems that the parents should be able to go pick the child up and take them home. Senator Rieger said he felt the amendment was exactly what needed to be accomplished and the objections raised were incorrect. He referred to page 3 of amendment #2 and it explained that one cannot leave a semi-secure facility except with permission of the minor's legal custodian or if one leaves without permission but goes straight home. It is only required at the bottom of page 2 that the minor be advised of the rules. There are two types of runaways; an abusive situation at home and they are going to stay because what they want is a safe place; and runaways because they want to be runaways. Those are the ones that can be picked up if they leave that safe place. The amendment is exactly what we want to achieve. Becky Snow advised that she had no further testimony and there were no further questions by committee members. Senator Frank did request that she write down her concerns. He also requested suggestions to make this amendment work within the parameters of the constitution. He stated that it was understood that an individual was not to be deprived of their liberty without due process or having committed a crime. Diane Worley, Director Division of Family and Youth Services was invited to join the committee. She said the Division supported the first version of the bill and did have some concerns with amendment #2. The big issues that they were faced with included the state detention facilities that were extremely overburdened at the time. It is overwhelming to think of adding juveniles to the system now. As an example she stated the Johnson Youth Center had a capacity for 8 beds but was running between 15 and 16 children per day. That is double capacity. The other major concern was mandatory detainment. There are detention standards once a youth has been picked up but no mandatory detainment at this point. With the current overcrowding this would mean releasing other delinquents that are not mandatorily detained in order to have space to detain the runaways. Another issue was the majority of runaways were not criminals and should they be housed in detention facilities with the juvenile delinquents who are in for rape, drugs, weapons and assault. What will be done with a mandatory detainment in communities where there is no detention facility? A child-in-need-of-aid should not be put in a locked facility. The child needs protection, not locking up. It was feared that in this situation the secured facility would become a revolving door. The juveniles would be in an out, back at home, and back in again to the overcrowded facilities. The last point made was that currently there was a zero fiscal note, but this amendment would constitute a considerable fiscal note. By detaining runaways who are not delinquents and in particular those who are children-in-need-of-aid the department would lose their federal funding which is approximately $600,000. This would cause the elimination of about 30 statewide programs being funded with this money. Senator Frank said that the situation was frustrating. Those running away from a legitimate abuse situation would not be likely to run away from a semi-secured facility and they would not be the revolving door situation. Those that do run away from the secured shelter are the only ones that would be placed in the detention facility. If more immediate action could be taken the escalation into criminal behaviour could be eliminated. There is some offsetting benefits from a prevention or early intervention standpoint. There is always the potential of running into overcrowding but it would be a very small sub-set of the larger runaway class. He hoped that this could be restructured to meet federal standards so that this funding would not be lost. The problem is substantial enough that this federal funding should not be driving the entire policy. These are real families with real problems and real children with real needs for focus on their problems. With more intervention earlier more children and families could be helped. Co-chairman Halford said that the same federal funds are saying that nothing can be done to help parents deal with the problems. The system is upside down and the federal funds are not worth it. Parents are not empowered to do anything and then there is only a response after the children are criminals and then they are not treated in adult courts. Senator Rieger asked what the trigger for the ineligibility for the federal funds was. Ms. Worley explained that according to Federal law youth who are not delinquent may not be detained in a locked up facility. Running away is not considered a criminal offense. Senator Phillips inquired whether it could be made a criminal offense. But Ms. Worley said even if it was made a state crime it would not be covered by federal funding. Senator Rieger said perhaps the word "shall" could be changed to "may" on page 1, line 11 of amendment #2 and that would allow for some flexibility. Senator Frank concurred if this would help comply with federal regulations. Senator Rieger said there is some argument in general about giving discretion to the officer. However, this could be explored to see how far one could go with regards to the federal funding. Ms. Worley said she would have to investigate this matter, but it still comes back to the matter of locking up a youth who is just a runaway, has not committed a crime and is not a delinquent, the department would be in jeopardy of the federal funding. There may be some ways this matter could be worked with. Alaska is not the only state dealing with this issue. It is felt there are other ways in dealing with runaways such as prevention and early intervention. Senator Frank said he would like to focus on some real counselling and professional help in dealing with these issues. However it is difficult to bring the services to bear when the child is running. Detention may help to bring this into focus. There will be those who will respond to this intervention but it is not a cure-all. Senator Phillips asked what is the philosophy of the department in dealing with this problem. Ms. Worley said they want to assist families as early as possible, provide more community based help and programs. The issues need to be worked on as families. The department wants to provide whatever support necessary to see successful families. She said runaways were an ongoing problem. If child abuse is claimed that is an issue that has to be dealt with as mandated. If a situation is investigated and no abuse is substantiated the family would be referred for services to help deal with this. The runaway issue is probably the most difficult one to be dealt with. Unless we are committed to locking children up until they are eighteen there are some children that we will never be able to keep at home. Co- chairman Halford said state and federal governments have taken away from parents the ability to enforce the word "no". It has been replaced with social gibberish that has done no good for the last two or three decades. Senator Phillips concurred saying that this is the message they are getting from their constituents. Senator Frank said there are the children who will not respond, but greater focus needs to be placed on those who will. At the present there is a policy of non-intervention and there is help for the family through counselling. Perhaps children will respond to a little more authority. Ms. Worley agreed that all concerned should continue to work together. Senator Sharp asked if there were statistics available on how many of the children at the detention center were runaways. Ms. Worley said that there was nothing to show this information presently. Senator Sharp voiced concern of adults providing overnight shelter for runaways based on their own pleasure. He felt that the best deterrent was to spend one night in jail. Now we are only providing a revolving door convenience for safety. A runaway must know that they are making the choice to runaway and spend the night in prison. This may wake them up to realize that home is not that bad. The child must know that there are choices to be made and one of them is if you run away from home and not abused there are some responsibilities and some deterrents. He supported the bill. Senator Zharoff voiced concern about not all runaways are criminals nor did all criminals start off as runaways. This is a problem in urban areas as well as rural. Perhaps this is something that should be worked on piece by piece until solution is found. It would be good to find out how many runaways there are. In a large number of communities there are no detention facilities and it would be necessary to ship a village runaway to Anchorage to the detention facility. He felt as Senator Rieger in changing the "shall" to "may" would help correct this problem. Co-chairman Halford referred to Senator Rieger's amendment detention center and that was his reason for submitting this amendment. Ms. Worley said the department would agree to the change of "shall" to "may". However, according to federal regulations, a secured facility is still locking up a non-delinquent and the department would be in jeopardy of losing federal funds. It would remedy the situation of overcrowding and need for additional staff and facilities. Senator Frank said he did not believe Congress was interested in preventing states from addressing these problems. He could appreciate them being concerned about locking up runaways but asked that a quick research be done about what is going on in Congress. Perhaps it would allow an opportunity for this kind of intervention for a limited time. Ms. Worley in response to a question from Senator Phillips said the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention regulations are existing regulations. There are a number of other states dealing with the same issues and she said Congress is looking at the possibility of making some changes in those regulations. Senator Frank said in light of the fact there have been several hearings on this bill, in order to achieve what the committee would like to and give the department more flexibility, he recommended the passage of the two amendments and continued work with the department as the bill moved through the process in order to try and save federal funds. Senator Rieger moved his amendment to amendment #2 and without objection it was adopted. Senator Frank moved amendment #1 and without objection it was adopted. Senator Frank moved CSSB 289(FIN) and without objection it was reported out with individual recommendations. Co-chairman Halford asked the Department of Health and Social Services to submit a new fiscal note recognizing a change. Senator Sharp asked the department provide the federal statute preventing detention of a juvenile. Co-chairman concurred. SENATE BILL NO. 253 "An Act relating to insurance coverage for costs of prostate cancer detection." Senator Jim Duncan was invited to join the committee and briefly spoke on behalf of the bill. Carole Edwards, certified oncology nurse, was invited to join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States for men. Hereditary does play a part in prostate cancer. Currently, the American Cancer Society guidelines recommend men over the age of fifty have an annual digital rectal exam along with a prostate screening antigen test. This is a simple blood draw costing approximately $60. However, this is not paid for by the insurance companies, even high risk men. The American Cancer Society also recommends doing this test on high risk men at age forty. (tape change to SFC-96 #58, Side 1 She said she supported this bill because she would like to see less of her patients die or undergo extensive therapy. The sooner this cancer is found the easier it is to cure and there is a higher success rate. It is also less expensive to treat an earlier found cancer as opposed to a later found one. Insurance companies should pay for this test for men. Senator Rieger said he had information that the same problem existed for women as far as pap smear test. Ms. Edwards said as far as she was aware pap smear tests were paid for by insurance. She further believed that more lives would be saved if American Cancer Society guidelines were followed and the PAS test was covered by insurance to make it more available to all society. Mr. Gene Dau, AARP, VFW was invited to join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill. He felt there should be more encouragement for the screening of this disease and said it should be part of an annual check-up. He urged the committee to pass this bill. Janet Parker, Deputy Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits was invited to join the committee. She answered questions for the committee regarding the fiscal notes. In response to Senator Rieger's question regarding pap smear exams, she said the active plan covered this exam but the retiree plan did not. She said that although the PAS exam would cost the plan money it was believe that the entire cost would be borne by the employees themselves because this exam is performed during a routine physical which is only provided for state employees under SBS option one plan which the employee pays for. The revised fiscal note can reflect that. Senator Sharp asked if this bill would cover PAS under retirement and Ms. Parker advised that it would because it would be a state law mandating coverage. Senator Duncan said that regarding the fiscal note what is missing is what the long-term savings would be. If cancer is detected early there is a substantial long-term savings. Senator Frank asked how the state decided this coverage. Ms. Parker said there is no financial analysis done. Health benefits are collectively bargained and whoever is on the bargaining team and has a preference for a specific type of coverage is how this is handled. Co-chairman Halford indicated the high cost of just drugs for one who has been diagnosed with the disease. Senator Duncan referred to amendment #1 and said it had a better definition as to when this test should be covered and under what circumstances. This is supported by the American Cancer Society. It defines the specific age group and asked the committee to consider it as an amendment to the bill. Mr. Bill Chism was invited to join the committee. His first two PAS exams were covered by Aetna Insurance but then he was advised that this was not a proper exam and that they had made a mistake covering the last two exams. Mr. Chism said that he felt if his dentist exam was covered then this exam should be considered to be paid for. It is not an undue burden on the insurance companies to cover this. He said he supported this bill. Senator Duncan referred to the pap smear exam and said he had not problem with his bill being expanded to also cover this. Senator Sharp offered amendment #1 and without objection it was adopted. Co-chairman Halford held the bill in committee and asked Senator Rieger to further check cancer screening. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the budget reserve fund. Senator Rieger offered a brief explanation of SJR 30. He referred to the statement of support from the voters' pamphlet. Mr. Brad Pierce, Office of Management and Budget was invited to join the committee and testified in support of the bill. He said the Knowles' administration supported this bill. The repeal of the payback provision makes sense because it is a debt on the books and difficult to explain to bond rating agencies. The clarification in the resolution of when a super majority vote is needed to draw off from the CBR is more problematic although the administration is in favour of the way it is written. It is in keeping with the intent of the voters when they passed this original amendment. The Department of Law feels that it is important to leave a very clear legislative trail on this change to the constitutional amendment in case it should have to be defended in Court. The concern is that the issue is not confused by replacing the language available for appropriation which the Court has defined. They do not want this issue revisited in a couple of years and have to go back to the voters because they were not thinking far enough ahead. The Governor further would like to see a thorough discussion of this resolution with respect to exactly how it would work in the context of an overall fiscal plan. Senator Rieger moved SJR 30 and without objection it was reported out with individual recommendations and $2.2 fiscal note from the Office of the Governor. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 198(RES) "An Act establishing the Homer Airport Critical Habitat Area." Senator John Torgerson was invited to join the committee and testified in support of the bill. He explained that amendment #1 would delete two triangles in the lower corner as depicted on the aerial map presented. The current owner of the property, Department of Transportation, would be transfer the property to the Department of Fish and Game and it would be managed as a critical habitat area for moose. He has tried to ease the worries of the public that this was not a bill to enhance bird habitat. However, with the recent crash of the AWACS plane and other incidents involving birds he proposed an amendment which would take out the outholdings depicted on the map. The primary purpose of this critical habitat area is for the moose population. Senator Phillips asked the consequences if the two pieces of property were left in. Senator Torgerson said that it was a matter of comfort and safety. In respond to Senator Phillips question there was a lot of concern by many individuals regarding passengers being killed in aircraft because they met with bird problems. It is referred to in the bill that no one may enhance the bird population. He felt comfortable taking out the two areas of property as they housed some nests for Aleutian terns. Senator Donley moved amendment #1 and without objection it was adopted. Senator Sharp moved CSSB 198(FIN) and without objection it was reported out with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 A.M.